U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

80-615 PS 2002

THE DEVELOPING CRISIS FACING WILDLIFE SPECIES DUE

TO BUSHMEAT CONSUMPTION

OVERSIGHT HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES CONSERVATION,

WILDLIFE AND OCEANS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

July 11, 2002

Serial No. 107-137

Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house

or

Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov

(II)

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah, Chairman

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia, Ranking Democrat Member

Don Young, Alaska,

Vice Chairman

W.J. ‘‘Billy’’ Tauzin, Louisiana

Jim Saxton, New Jersey

Elton Gallegly, California

John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee

Joel Hefley, Colorado

Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland

Ken Calvert, California

Scott McInnis, Colorado

Richard W. Pombo, California

Barbara Cubin, Wyoming

George Radanovich, California

Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Carolina

Mac Thornberry, Texas

Chris Cannon, Utah

John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania

Bob Schaffer, Colorado

Jim Gibbons, Nevada

Mark E. Souder, Indiana

Greg Walden, Oregon

Michael K. Simpson, Idaho

Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado

J.D. Hayworth, Arizona

C.L. ‘‘Butch’’ Otter, Idaho

Tom Osborne, Nebraska

Jeff Flake, Arizona

Dennis R. Rehberg, Montana

George Miller, California

Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts

Dale E. Kildee, Michigan

Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon

Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Samoa

Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii

Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas

Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey

Calvin M. Dooley, California

Robert A. Underwood, Guam

Adam Smith, Washington

Donna M. Christensen, Virgin Islands

Ron Kind, Wisconsin

Jay Inslee, Washington

Grace F. Napolitano, California

Tom Udall, New Mexico

Mark Udall, Colorado

Rush D. Holt, New Jersey

Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico

Hilda L. Solis, California

Brad Carson, Oklahoma

Betty McCollum, Minnesota

Tim Holden, Pennsylvania

Tim Stewart, Chief of Staff

Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel/Deputy Chief of Staff

Steven T. Petersen, Deputy Chief Counsel

Michael S. Twinchek, Chief Clerk

James H. Zoia, Democrat Staff Director

Jeffrey P. Petrich, Democrat Chief Counsel

SUBCOMMITTE ON FISHERIES CONSERVATION, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland, Chairman

ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam, Ranking Democrat Member

Don Young, Alaska

W.J. ‘‘Billy’’ Tauzin, Louisiana

Jim Saxton, New Jersey,

Vice Chairman

Richard W. Pombo, California

Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Carolina

Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Samoa

Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii

Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas

Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey

(III)

CONTENTS

Page

Hearing held on July 11, 2002 ............................................................................... 1

Statement of Members:

Gilchrest, Hon. Wayne T., a Representative in Congress from the State

of Maryland ................................................................................................... 1

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 2

Underwood, Hon. Robert A., a Delegate in Congress from Guam,

Prepared statement of .................................................................................. 3

Statement of Witnesses:

Agnagna, Marcellin, Chairman, CITES Bushmeat Working Group ............ 30

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 32

Bakarr, Dr. Mohamed, Senior Technical Director, Center for Applied

Biodiversity Science, Conservation International ...................................... 72

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 75

Burnam, Jeffry M., Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Environment,

Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific

Affairs, U.S. Department of State ............................................................... 3

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 5

Carroll, Dr. Richard W., Director, West and Central Africa and

Madagascar Program, World Wildlife Fund ............................................... 57

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 59

Graham, James A., Project Manager, Central Africa Regional Program

for the Environment, U.S. Agency for International Development .......... 18

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 19

Hutchins, Dr. Michael, Director, Department of Conservation and

Science, American Zoo and Aquarium Association, and Co-Chairman,

Bushmeat Crisis Task Force ........................................................................ 38

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 39

Robinson, Dr. John G., Senior Vice President and Director, International

Conservation, Wildlife Conservation Society .............................................. 68

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 70

Stansell, Kenneth, Assistant Director for International Affairs, Fish and

Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior ...................................... 6

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 8

Additional materials supplied:

Article ‘‘Bushmeat and the Origin of HIV/AIDS’’ submitted for the record 84

Article ‘‘Warfare on gorillas poses threat to survival’’ submitted for the

record ............................................................................................................. 90

Hoyt, Reginald, Senior Vice President, Conservation and Science,

Philadelphia Zoo, Statement submitted for the record .............................. 93

(1)

OVERSIGHT HEARING ON THE DEVELOPING

CRISIS FACING WILDLIFE SPECIES DUE TO

BUSHMEAT CONSUMPTION

Thursday, July 11, 2002

U.S. House of Representatives

Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans

Committee on Resources

Washington, DC

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:05 a.m., in

room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Wayne T.

Gilchrest [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. WAYNE GILCHREST, A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF

MARYLAND

Mr. GILCHREST. The Subcommittee will come to order.

Good morning, everyone. Thank you all so much for being here.

We are looking forward to the testimony this morning for this hearing on the present crisis in the African bush trade problem, which

I am sure is similar in nature in many other places around the

world. But the present crisis warrants our focused attention and

energy.

According to the U.S.-based Bushmeat Crisis Task Force, hunters

in Central Africa now kill more than a million metric tons of wildlife each year. The total value of the bushmeat trade has reached

the staggering level of more than US$50 million annually and potentially could grow to hundreds of millions of dollars in the next

two decades. The trade has been called the ‘‘most significant threat

to wildlife in Africa today.’’

Among the animals prominently killed for the trade are forest

elephants, gorillas, and chimpanzees. Each of these species is endangered and internationally protected, but unless we take steps,

these flagships species could disappear forever. In fact, earlier this

month poachers killed two adult female mountain gorillas in Rwanda. This is a tragedy for the species that is already on the brink

of extinction.

While no one would suggest that people in Africa should be denied the opportunity to feed their families, the international community must encourage the consumption of alternative sources of

protein and the creation of other types of income-generating employment. According to Mr. Peter Walsh of the Wildlife ConservaVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:10 May 06, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 80615.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
2

tion Society, ‘‘We’re not talking about starving villagers needing

meat. This is heavily organized commercial poaching where money

is the motivation.’’ In reality, a great deal of bushmeat is not even

eaten by the indigenous population but by consumers who order it

from menus at exotic restaurants in Paris, Tokyo, Taipei, and the

United States.

Furthermore, we are just beginning to understand the health implications of eating tainted bushmeat. Wildlife, particularly primates, harbor diseases which can jump between species and cause

lethal diseases such as AIDS and Ebola.

Our choices are quite simple. We can sit idly by and allow the

crisis to exterminate wildlife species throughout Africa, or we can

embrace the philosophy of E. O. Wilson who writes that ‘‘Every

scrap of biological diversity is priceless, to be learned and cherished, and never to be surrendered.’’ I would choose this approach.

We are here this morning to learn from the witnesses, who we

can work with to create a strategy so that we will be prepared in

this generation to meet the new ‘‘Silent Spring’’ challenge. We will

save every scrap of biodiversity that we can. And we will do it in

an ever-increasing, wider team effort with the international community.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gilchrest follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Wayne T. Gilchrest, Chairman,

Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans

Good morning, today, the Subcommittee will conduct an unprecedented oversight

hearing on the growing crisis of bushmeat consumption on various wildlife species.

According to the U.S. based Bushmeat Crisis Task Force, hunters in Central

Africa now kill more than a million metric tons of wildlife each year. The total value

of the bushmeat trade has reached the staggering level of more than $50 million

U.S. dollars annually. The trade has been called the ‘‘most significant threat to wildlife in Africa today’’.

Among the animals prominently killed for the trade are forest elephants, gorillas

and chimpanzees. Each of these species is endangered and internationally protected

but unless steps are taken, these flagship species will disappear forever. In fact, earlier this month, poachers killed two adult female mountain gorillas in Rwanda. This

is a horrible tragedy for a species that is already on the brink of extinction.

While no one would suggest that people in Africa should be denied the opportunity to feed their families, the international community must encourage the consumption of alternative sources of protein and the creation of other types of income

generating employment. According to Mr. Peter Walsh, of the Wildlife Conservation

Society, ‘‘We’re not talking about starving villagers needing meat. This is heavily

organized commercial poaching where money is the motivation’’. In reality, a great

deal of bushmeat is not even eaten by the indigenous population but by consumers

who order it from menus at exotic restaurants in Paris, Tokyo, Taipei and in the

United States.

Furthermore, we are just beginning to understand the health implications of eating tainted bushmeat. Wildlife, particularly primates, harbor diseases which can

jump between species and cause lethal diseases such as AIDS and Ebola. Our

choices are quite simple. We can sit idly by and allow this crisis to exterminate

wildlife species throughout Africa or we can embrace the philosophy of E. O. Wilson

who writes that ‘‘every scrap of biological diversity is priceless, to be learned and

cherished, and never to be surrendered’’. I choose this approach because each species is vital to the future survival of the ecosystem of the continent.

While I do not have the answer on how to solve the bushmeat crisis, I am confident that our distinguished witnesses will shed some light and will propose some

potential solutions to this vexing problem.

I am now pleased to recognize my friend, the distinguished gentleman from

Guam, Congressman Robert Underwood.

3

Mr. GILCHREST. At this point I ask unanimous consent that the

gentleman from Guam, Mr. Underwood’s statement be put into the

record.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Underwood follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Robert A. Underwood, a Delegate in Congress

from Guam

Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for holding this hearing on the

bushmeat crisis in Africa. I look forward to hearing from the experts about what

the United States and the international community can do to stop the wanton extermination of Africa’s wildlife.

At first glance, this problem is simply appalling. Our closest relatives, the Great

Apes, with complex human-like social behavior, are on the brink of extinction.

Africa’s diverse populations of mammals, reptiles, and invertebrates are being decimated. In one example, a single logging camp of 648 people in the Republic of Congo

can harvest 8,251 animals annually, or the equivalent of 124 tons of wild meat.

Experts contend that the motivation for the consumption of bushmeat varies from

hunger and poverty to cultural traditions to sport. A growing luxury market in

urban centers for bushmeat is another ominous threat.

Regrettably, the problem appears intractable. The only way to find solutions is to

ask the experts. And perhaps, our only hope to achieve success may be to engage

many types of organizations, including commercial entities or industries operating

in remote areas, that have access to both financial resources and local people.

I contend that strong leadership by the United States is necessary on this front.

As you know, Mr. Chairman, I have been in support of, and worked closely with

you to reauthorize, several international conservation laws. I have also supported

increased funding for the Multinational Species Conservation Fund.

We have the opportunity today to learn about a topic that could become one of

the world’s great environmental tragedies. My hope is that we will be spurred on

to take more purposeful action.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for creating this forum for discussion. I trust that this

hearing is only the first of many discussions in this Committee and in the Congress.

Mr. GILCHREST. And since I am alone up here on the dais and

the staff probably don’t have any opening statements to make in

public, we will start the hearing.

Our first witness is Mr. Jeffry Burnam, Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Environment, Bureau of Oceans and International

Environment and Scientific Affairs with the Department of State;

Dr. Kenneth Stansell, Assistant Director for International Affairs,

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of Interior; and Mr.

James Graham, Project Manager, Central Africa Regional Program

for the Environment, USAID Bureau of Africa.

Good morning, gentlemen. Mr. Burnam, you may begin, sir.

STATEMENT OF JEFFRY BURNAM, DEPUTY ASSISTANT

SECRETARY FOR ENVIRONMENT, BUREAU OF OCEANS AND

INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL AND SCIENTIFIC

AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE

Mr. BURNAM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to share with you the Department of State’s views on the

international aspects of the growing problem of bushmeat consumption, which you highlighted in your opening remarks. With

your permission, I would like to submit my full statement for the

record and only read portions of it.

Mr. GILCHREST. Without objection, so ordered.

Mr. BURNAM. On a recent trip to the Republic of Congo, I saw

firsthand the seriousness of the large-scale bushmeat consumption

problem. I had the opportunity to visit a pilot project where a forVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:10 May 06, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 80615.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
4

estry concessionaire and a local community were working together

to help control poaching in a buffer zone around a reserve. I believe

that this pilot project suggests that there are many opportunities

in Central Africa to work effectively with logging companies to help

control activities that have an adverse impact on forests and wildlife.

As you pointed out, the scale of bushmeat consumption is threatening the survival of species such as elephants, gorillas, and chimpanzees in Africa. While bushmeat provides animal protein and a

source of income for many families, the bushmeat trade has recently increased dramatically. Concession logging is an important

activity in many of these countries. However, it must be properly

managed because concession logging results in construction of

roads as well as in the migration of populations into previously undisturbed and remote forest areas. In the pilot project I visited in

the Republic of Congo, for example, there were only a few hundred

villagers in the area prior to the opening of the logging concession,

but now there are four or five thousand employees of the logging

concession, so you can imagine the impact those additional people

have on bushmeat consumption.

The threat to wildlife from the bushmeat trade is also related to

political, social, and economic issues. In the Congo Basin, wildlife

harvesting is occurring beyond sustainable levels. The illegal trade

in wildlife often goes hand in hand with illegal logging and with

lack of respect for the rule of law and good governance.

The Department of State has taken a number of steps to address

these concerns. The project which I visited in Congo (Brazzaville)

is supported by the Department of State, by the International

Tropical Timber Organization, and by the United States Agency for

International Development through the CARPE program. Nongovernmental and private partners include the Wildlife Conservation Society, the Columbus Zoo, and the logging concessionaire

itself. The pilot project employs local people as ‘‘eco-guards.’’ It provides income for communities living on the edge of a national park,

and it provides a means to enforce the forestry and wildlife laws.

Two aspects of the project I found particularly interesting were

the attempts to develop alternative sources of protein for the local

residents, and then, second, employees of the logging company, who

are, for the most part, the residents of the area, are penalized if

they violate the poaching laws. So you can be fined if you are an

employee and you violate the laws against hunting, and there have

even been some that have been dismissed. So this buffer zone

around the national park is actually very helpful in protecting the

national park because it provides an effective way of reducing

poaching and other threats to wildlife in the area.

In the CITES convention, a Bushmeat Working Group was set up

which the Department of State has supported. We have also supported the work of the Bushmeat Crisis Task Force. And our own,

my Bureau of OES has worked with the Bushmeat Crisis Task

Force in Central Africa, and CARPE, and there is a workshop in

Brazzaville at the end of this month and the beginning of next

month which should be very promising because it will review the

progress of a number of pilot projects in the area and get people

together to focus on an awareness of the issues involved.

5

State considers commercial harvesting of bushmeat a significant

biodiversity issue. We are committed to working with partners,

both domestically and internationally, to address the problem. In

general, I believe there are four areas we can focus on for international collaboration to address this problem, which, as you point

out, is badly in need of focused attention.

First would be education about the bushmeat problem, education

in the concept of sustainability. The Columbus Zoo was involved in

the education aspect of this particular project;

Working through international organizations and agreements;

Encouraging further pilot programs, and I only mention this particular one because I visited it, but there are other programs. The

World Wildlife Fund will testify to pilot programs that are similar

in nature;

And, of course, educating those consumers in the fancy restaurants about the impacts of their consumption on the bushmeat

trade.

Mr. Chairman, effective solutions to the bushmeat problem require a multifaceted approach. We all share the common goal of

preserving biological diversity for future generations. Our ability to

do so depends upon devising practical measures to move science

and policy toward that end.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify, and I would,

of course, be pleased to answer any questions that you may have.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Burnam follows:]

Statement of Jeffry Burnam, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for

Environment, Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and

Scientific Affairs, U.S. Department of State

Thank you for the opportunity to share the Department of State’s views on the

international aspects of the growing problem of bushmeat consumption.

On a recent trip to the Republic of Congo, I saw firsthand the seriousness of the

large-scale bushmeat consumption problem. I had the opportunity to visit a pilot

project where a forestry concessionaire and a local community were working together to help control poaching in a buffer zone around a reserve. I believe that this

pilot project suggests that there are many opportunities in Central Africa to work

effectively with logging companies to help control activities that have an impact on

forests and wildlife.

The scale of bushmeat consumption is threatening the survival of species such as

elephants, gorillas and chimpanzees in Africa. While bushmeat provides animal protein and a source of income for many families, the bushmeat trade has recently increased dramatically. Concession logging is an important economic activity in many

of these countries. However, it must be properly managed because concession logging results in construction of roads and the migration of population into previously

undisturbed and remote forest areas. These factors, combined with the development

of social and economic networks to support the bushmeat industry and an increasing demand internationally, have transformed bushmeat harvesting from a subsistence activity into a commercial enterprise.

The United States recognizes the cultural and nutritional needs of many communities who use bushmeat for subsistence. Our concern is that the large-scale, unregulated and illegal trade in bushmeat could lead to extinction of many wildlife

species and irreversible impacts on African ecosystems.

The threat to wildlife from the bushmeat trade is intimately related to political,

social and economic issues. In the Congo Basin, wildlife harvesting is occurring beyond sustainable levels. The illegal trade in wildlife often goes hand in hand with

illegal logging and with lack of respect for the rule of law and good governance.

The Department of State has taken a number of steps to address these concerns.

The project which I visited in the Republic of Congo is supported by the Department

of State, by the International Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO) and by the

United States Agency for International Development through its Central African Regional Program for the Environment (CARPE). Nongovernmental (NGO) and private

6

partners include the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS), the Columbus Zoo and

the logging concessionaire itself, the Consortium Industrielle Des Bois (C.I.B.) This

pilot project employs local people as ‘‘eco-guards’’ to protect against commercial-scale

bushmeat hunting. It provides income for communities living on the edge of a national park and a means to enforce the forestry and wildlife laws.

The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and

Flora (CITES) set up a Bushmeat Working Group to promote awareness of the issue

of cross-border trade in bushmeat, which the Department of State supported. The

United States has also supported the work of a coordinating NGO, the Bushmeat

Crisis Task Force, which works with governments and concerned NGOs to address

the bushmeat crisis in Africa. I understand that the Bushmeat Crisis Task Force

has recently secured several grants from private foundations and from the U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service to assist six Central African governments in addressing the

bushmeat crisis.

At the Department of State, our Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs (OES) has supported the Bushmeat Crisis Task Force’s

work in Central Africa in conjunction with the Central African Regional Program

for the Environment (CARPE). We are also helping to sponsor a workshop on wildlife management and conservation in timber concessions in Central Africa in August

2002, focusing in particular on raising the awareness of government policy makers

and regulators on the relevance of these issues to sustainable forest management.

The Department of State considers commercial harvesting of bushmeat for widespread consumption a significant biodiversity issue and is committed to working

with partners domestically and abroad to address the problems associated with it,

including in the context of sustainable development. In general, further international collaboration on this issue could include:

Educating governments, forest concessionaires, and local people about the

bushmeat problem and empowering them to understand the concept of sustainability in terms of wildlife harvest.

Working through international agreements such as CITES, CBD and ITTO to

further efforts to control the illegal commercial bushmeat trade.

Encouraging governments, forest concessionaires, and local communities to take

responsibility and put programs in place for maintaining viable and sustainable

wildlife populations.

Educating consumers internationally about the impacts of the bushmeat trade

on wildlife populations.

Mr. Chairman, effective solutions to the bushmeat problem require a multifaceted

approach that addresses the fundamental social, political and economic causes of the

problem. We all share the common goal of preserving biological diversity for future

generations. Our ability to do so depends upon devising practical measures to move

science and policy towards this end.

Thank you very much. I would be happy to answer any questions that you may

have.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Mr. Burnam.

Dr. Stansell?

STATEMENT OF KENNETH STANSELL, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR

FOR INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Dr. STANSELL. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. I, too, appreciate

the opportunity to appear before you today to present the views of

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on the growing crisis of illegal

bushmeat consumption in Africa. We have provided our written

testimony for the record, so today I would like to make a few brief

remarks highlighting the causes, current Service activities, and additional measures that we feel may be needed.

The illegal commercial killing of wildlife, particularly threatened

and endangered species, is certainly not unique to Africa. However,

it is in Central and West Africa that world attention has been focused on the serious threat to the survival of great apes throughout

the region. The lives of humans and wildlife in Africa are intiVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:10 May 06, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 80615.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
7

mately entwined. Many rural communities must utilize wildlife resources to satisfy their basic needs. Therefore, it is important to

make clear a distinction between the legal harvest of wildlife on a

sustainable basis and the unsustainable and illegal commercial exploitation that now exists in many parts of Africa.

The underlying factors driving this exploitation include social

and political unrest, lack of adequate protected areas for wildlife,

inadequate law enforcement, lack of management capacity in range

countries, and a staggering increase in demand.

Roads are built for harvesting timber, penetrating previously inaccessible forests. Poachers have the increasing availability of technology: large-caliber automatic weapons and steel snares. The result is a greatly enhanced ability to kill, process, and transport

large quantities of bushmeat to meet an ever-increasing demand.

Dozens of species, both common and endangered, are being exploited at unsustainable rates. Long-lived and slow-reproducing

species, such as the great apes and elephants, are among the hardest hit. Chimps and gorillas are particularly prized and often command the highest prices in faraway markets. Through our International Affairs Program, the Service actively participates in a

number of activities with a wide range of partners, some that you

will hear from today. These include other Federal agencies, governments of other countries, and national and international NGO’s.

Through our leadership role in the Convention on International

Trade in Endangered Species, we have supported efforts to bring

this issue to a global forum, resulting in the establishment of a

working group that very importantly includes the affected range

countries to explore ways to address the illegal trade and bring attention to the conditions that foster it.

Also, through our Multinational Species Conservation Funds particularly for African elephants and great apes, the Service is supporting a number of on-the-ground projects. Our focus is twopronged: helping to foster local community awareness of the need

to manage wildlife sustainably for the long run, and working with

our counterpart agencies in range countries, helping to build law

enforcement capacity and, where appropriate, to support development of effective systems for legal hunting and trade in the near

term.

Through the witnesses today, this Committee will hear a great

deal about the crisis and what is being currently done. Regrettably,

however, much more remains. We should sustain and enhance

these ongoing collaborative efforts. They are making a difference.

But we also must address more effectively the underlying causes

of this crisis, such as the lack of adequate wildlife monitoring and

sustainable management, inadequate systems of protected areas,

and, importantly, the need for capacity building.

Range states and local communities must be provided the tools

to allow for greater enforcement of existing laws and technical assistance to support wildlife conservation that is sustainable, based

both on science and the practical realities.

Mr. Chairman, the Service appreciates your interest in this critical problem, and we look forward to working with you to find solutions to this growing crisis. I, too, would be pleased to respond to

any questions that you might have. Thank you.

8

[The prepared statement of Dr. Stansell follows:]

Statement of Kenneth Stansell, Assistant Director for International Affairs,

Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am Kenneth

Stansell, Assistant Director for International Affairs for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service. I appreciate the opportunity to present testimony for the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service on the issue of illegal bushmeat consumption in Africa. My testimony will provide the Subcommittee with information regarding the causes of the

problems, and the Service’s role in wildlife conservation in Africa and how it helps

reduce the bushmeat trade. I will also suggest additional measures to address the

issue.

Background

Humans and wildlife in Africa share a long and intimately entwined relationship.

Many rural communities utilize wildlife resources to satisfy nutritional, economic,

and cultural needs. Some communities are almost entirely dependent on wildlife for

their subsistence. Meat from domestic species, sometimes imported over long distances, is usually more expensive in remote areas. Livestock husbandry is extremely

limited in the forest zone, and even when present, domestic animals are usually utilized as a living bank account (i.e. to be bought and sold) rather than as a sustained

source of animal protein through consumption. Urban dwellers are reported to

maintain a preference for meat from wild animals over available domestic meat

such as beef, fish, and poultry, and indulge this preference if it is affordable. The

contrast between the consumption of wildlife in urban centers and in rural areas,

and between legal and illegal exploitation of wildlife, require careful qualification

in the context of this discussion. The Service would like to make clear the distinction between the legal harvesting of wildlife on a sustainable basis and the

unsustainable, illegal trade that exists in many parts of Africa on such an enormous

scale.

The conservation community refers to the problem under discussion as at the Illegal Commercial Trade in Bushmeat,@ to distinguish it from legal, small-scale hunting for subsistence and use by local populations in the areas of production. Dozens

of species, from rodents to elephants, and including numerous endangered and

threatened species, are utilized in the bushmeat trade. [A list of such species is attached.] Legally harvested bushmeat forms a major component of many rural household economies and is a vital source of protein, particularly in rural areas in the

forest zone, where alternatives are few or expensive. However, the continued legal

utilization of bushmeat by local populations is threatened by illegal commercialscale exploitation.

Outside traders export large quantities of illegally, and legally, taken bushmeat

from areas of production using modern technology such as firearms, wire snares,

and transport on motor vehicles. Local hunters are often stuck in a cycle of indebtedness to these traders who, along with market sellers, acquire the major share of

profits from the bushmeat trade. It is important to note that some cultures, such

as the numerous BaAka Pygmy groups indigenous to the Central Africa region, are

at risk of extinction as a result of shifting economies and the advent of the commercial bushmeat trade. The underlying factors driving the bushmeat trade lack of adequate protected areas for wildlife, lack of protein and economic alternatives for rural

people, lack of law enforcement capacity in regional governments, and increasing demand for bushmeat must be addressed if the current unsustainable and destructive

practices are to be effectively managed. This requires an innovative collaborative effort not only by governments and conservation professionals, but also development

experts from throughout the global community.

The bushmeat problem is by no means unique to Africa; it is widespread throughout Asia and Latin America as well. However, it is in Central and West Africa that

world attention has been focused on the illegal, commercial killing of wildlife for

meat and its impacts on both faunal integrity and ecosystem functions. Due to the

low productivity of tropical forest ecosystems, the impacts of poaching over a relatively short period are threatening many species with local extinction and some

species, such as the Great Apes, with extinction in much of their range.

An important question to consider is, what has changed in Africa to cause such

a steep decline in wildlife populations? People have hunted and eaten wildlife

throughout known history, but until recently, large areas still contained significant

wildlife populations. However, economic, technological, and social conditions have

changed in ways that make a once localized phenomenon widespread across the continent.

9

Over history, it is likely there were periodic local increases and decreases of hunting pressure and wildlife population levels. Recent decades have seen a dramatic increase in human population growth rates in Africa and a corresponding increase in

demand for meat. Wildlife populations may now be unable to reproduce sufficiently

to keep up with this growing demand. They are being adversely affected by a combination of over harvest and reduced availability of undisturbed habitat.

The introduction of modern cash economies and transport networks to once isolated, traditional communities puts a monetary value and trade mechanism on what

had been only locally consumed and shared. This opportunity for earning income in

areas where virtually no alternatives exist provides motivation for hunting that exceeds meeting the basic needs of family or community. Studies have clearly shown

that in some places where economies are rapidly developing, there is an increase

in available income. A increase in the demand for and the consumption of bushmeat

usually follows.

Another economic change in some areas of Central Africa that exacerbates the crisis is the collapse of commodity prices on the world market for crops such as cacao.

Previously productive plantations now stand idle and overgrown in many places.

Even crops such as oil palm nuts are now produced and shipped more efficiently

in West Africa or Asia, thereby rendering these economic alternatives unattractive.

Another cause of the problem is the ease of access to wildlife populations. Historically, access to distant tracts of forest was very difficult, and the ability of poachers

to kill, process, and transport large quantities of bushmeat was limited. Today,

roads penetrate into previously inaccessible forests. In addition, the technology used

to kill wildlife has also changed dramatically in recent times.

Underlying these changes in Africa is the political and social backdrop. Recent

decades have seen abrupt and unpredictable, as well as chronic civil conflict. With

the breakdown of law and the displacement of large numbers of people, hunting for

bushmeat increases dramatically. This is well illustrated in recent years in the

Democratic Republic of the Congo, formerly Zaire. National parks and protected

areas are settled by refugees and rebel soldiers who turn to wildlife for money and

sustenance. Enormous commercial operations in the eastern parts of that country

even export bushmeat northward to countries that have already exterminated their

wildlife.

The effects of the over harvest of wildlife for the commercial bushmeat market

may include species extinction over large areas or entire ecosystems. Some species

are more vulnerable than others. Long-lived and slow-reproducing species such as

elephants and apes are the hardest hit. Elephants are usually the first species to

be taken when a new area is opened to bushmeat hunting. Until recently, elephants

were poached primarily for ivory, with their meat being a by-product for local consumption or left in the forest. Now, because of the increased demand for bushmeat,

and the ease with which it can be transported and sold often across international

borders bushmeat commerce may be a greater threat to the remaining elephant

herds than ivory trading.

Gorillas, chimpanzees and bonobos are all illegally hunted for bushmeat, and they

are particularly sensitive to disturbance. As species populations come under illegal

hunting pressure, they often move into the territory of a neighboring population.

This may provoke additional stress, including fighting, among individuals from the

two groups. Because of the slow reproductive rate, the loss of even a few percent

of a population of these species each year over long periods is sufficient to drive species such as the bonobo to local extinction. Chimpanzee and gorillas are prized by

some bushmeat consumers and often fetch the highest price on the market. Some

hunters specialize in hunting apes with devastating effects on local populations.

Many more endangered or threatened species are also victims of over-exploitation,

including numerous species of monkeys and three species of crocodiles. Thousands

of dwarf crocodiles are captured each year in some areas and shipped live to markets in urban centers days or weeks away by riverboat. Our Congolese colleagues

inform us that dwarf crocodile numbers are plummeting, and they now are absent

from much of their range. This carries serious implications for the aquatic ecosystem.

Role of the Fish and Wildlife Service

The Service is an active participant in a variety of conservation activities with a

range of partners in the governments of developing countries and with international

and national non-governmental organizations. The Service is responsible for the implementation of the African Elephant Conservation Act of 1989 and the African Elephant Conservation Fund (AfECF) created by the Act, as well as the Great Ape Conservation Act of 2000 and Great Ape Conservation Fund (GACF) created by that

Act. With authority under these and two additional Multinational Species ConservaVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:10 May 06, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 80615.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
10

tion Acts, the Service is forging effective working relationships with range country

governments and non-governmental organizations (NGO) active throughout Africa

and Asia. Our Division of International Conservation is also a partner in U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)’s Central African Regional Program for

the Environment (CARPE), a collaboration of US-based NGOs and government

agencies working for conservation in the Central Africa forest zone. Our experience

in working with partners to conserve and manage wildlife and their habitats in

Africa continues to grow. Through our involvement on the ground and in developing

networks, the Service has gained some valuable but alarming consciousness about

serious wildlife conservation issues.

The African Elephant Conservation Act

Central Africa has been a major focus of technical and financial support through

AfECF. One project developed and implemented in cooperation with the World Wildlife Fund and the government of the Central African Republic emphasizes conservation of elephants and their habitats in protected areas such as the Dzanga–Ndoki

National Park. During the course of this project, an ecoguard force was trained and

equipped, and thousands of wire snares and dozens of illegal firearms have been

confiscated. Work with local communities has also led to a better understanding,

and increased level of cooperation, among villagers and park personnel. The control

of illegal bushmeat trade has been greatly improved through this project.

AfECF funds two important bushmeat control projects in the Republic of Congo,

both led by the Wildlife Conservation Society and the Congolese Ministry of Water

and Forests. One is a seminal project to regulate bushmeat production and trade

in a logging concession south of the Nouabale ́–Ndoki National Park in northern

Congo. In addition to controlling bushmeat poaching and traffic, the project is making significant progress developing a model for the relationship among a logging

company, local communities and hunters, and an international conservation NGO

to minimize illegal trade in bushmeat. The model will play an important role in the

re-examination of policies and regulations relating to logging concessions to address

wildlife management and exploitation concerns.

The other project is in the Lac Tele Community Forest Reserve in the northern

Congo. Because there are few roads in this remote area, the river network is used

to illegally transport large quantities of bushmeat northward to markets in the Central African Republic. The AfECF grant assists the reserves warden and his team

from the Ministry of Water and Forests with controlling key points in the river system that traverses the reserve. In addition, the project has a community awareness

component that seeks to inform villagers of the need to conserve wildlife for the

long-term, rather than merely as a means for immediate reward.

These three examples of joint projects pursued under AfECF demonstrate that

there are ways to help build law enforcement capacity among African government

agencies, and to support the development of effective legal hunting and trade regulation systems in the near term.

In the longer term, the training and education provided by these projects will

yield sustained benefits to conservation efforts. As the ability of the government to

analyze and deal with emerging problems increases, more effective conservation will

follow.

The Great Ape Conservation Act

The GACF currently supports 18 projects in 15 countries in Africa. An integral

component of some of these projects is conservation education and bushmeat awareness programs. These programs inform local communities that the Great Apes are

often targeted as bushmeat species, and are particularly hard-hit by poaching. The

Cameroon Wildlife Aid Fund, a national NGO with a conservation education program at the Yaounde Zoo, runs a project that educated an urban audience about

the bushmeat trade and its impact on apes and other wildlife. This project is particularly valuable because urban audiences have been largely neglected in most

countries in Central Africa.

Another important contribution to public awareness of the crisis is a wide-reaching project in partnership with the Bonobo Conservation Initiative (BCI). BCI a

small international NGO that is working with the government of the Democratic Republic of Congo, local NGOs, and communities in the area to the north of Salonga

National Park. The Salonga area and its surroundings comprise the entire range of

the bonobo. Therefore, protection and management of the area is critical to the survival of the species. This BCI program studies bonobo distribution north of Salonga

NP and has a major component to exchange information with communities about

the threat posed to bonobos by poaching. The BCI also plans a major radio camVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:10 May 06, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 80615.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
11

paign to raise awareness at a national level and has established an excellent working relationship with Congolese governmental agencies.

The Service’s Division of International Conservation is a CARPE partner and is

now in its second year of working with many partners from government agencies,

NGOs and academia. Our broad range of partners include U.S. Department of Agriculture/Forest Service, Peace Corps, and the National Aeronautic and Space Administration (NASA); World Wildlife Fund, Wildlife Conservation Society, Conservation

International, African Wildlife Foundation, World Resources Institute, and Innovative Resources Management; and, the University of Maryland. The focus of the Service’s efforts under USAID’s CARPE project is to support the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) Bushmeat Working Group (CBWG).

The CBWG was formed in response to an adopted proposal at the Eleventh CITES

Conference of the Parties, April 2000. The proposal’s mandate is to find ways to address the illegal trade in endangered and threatened species (CITES Appendices I

and II) across international borders as bushmeat, and the conditions that foster illegal trade in the countries from which the animals originate.

The CBWG is composed of representatives from six Central African countries including the Central African Republic, the Republic of Congo (Brazzaville), the Democratic Republic of the Congo (Kinshasa), Gabon, Cameroon, and Equatorial Guinea.

The national representatives are the heads of the respective wildlife divisions, and

each country has an appointed national bushmeat officer. A regional coordinator is

planned for Yaounde, Cameroon, who will work with the member countries to develop and execute a series of priority actions to address this trade. In addition, the

CBWG Regional Coordinator will work closely with the CITES–Monitoring of Illegally Killed Elephants Coordinator for Central Africa to assure a harmonization of

effort regarding monitoring of elephant killing and law enforcement patrols.

The Service is working with the governments of these six range countries, the

United Kingdom, and international NGOs such as the Bushmeat Crisis Task Force,

to support the CBWG and its work. Current efforts include: national wildlife policy

reviews; understanding the nature and details of the production sites, transport

routes and means, border crossing points, and other information that can be used

to control the illegal trade; a study on the status of various regulatory mechanisms

within forestry concessions, how they are designed and work, and how they can be

improved; and, ways to improve information exchange and the harmonizing of laws

among countries in the Central African sub-region. In addition, the CBWG will be

responsible for developing and implementing a region-wide awareness campaign regarding the bushmeat trade, which has been identified as a critically important and

effective mechanism for effecting beneficial change in behaviors with regard to wildlife use.

Recommendations

The Service recommends the following to address the bushmeat problem: (1) sustaining collaborative efforts such as the Multinational Species Conservation Acts

and CARPE Partnership; (2) Central African wildlife policy review and revision,

wildlife monitoring and sustainable management, and strengthening the protected

areas system in Central Africa; and (3) licensing and regulation of hunting seasons

and wildlife trade should be based on science and practicality.

In Central Africa, as elsewhere on the continent, laws exist to regulate hunting

and commercial exploitation of wildlife and other forest products. Certain species

cannot be hunted, such as the great apes; and some areas are off limits to hunters,

such as national parks and other protected areas. In some countries there are closed

hunting seasons, and legal methods of hunting and quotas for some species are limited. In most areas, hunters must be licensed and their firearms registered by the

authorities. In other places, hunters may only employ traditional means such as

crossbows, spears, or nets made of natural fibers. Although the law regulates the

commercialization of wildlife, the means to enforce laws and to regulate hunting and

trade in wildlife products is very limited. Enforcement of existing laws is needed to

regulate hunting and trade so that it is sustainable over the long term.

The CBWG, in cooperation with the CARPE partnership, will conduct policy review and revision in the coming year. Within existing resources, the Service will examine ways to further support this work with technical advice and to assist the

range states, when asked, to develop optimal wildlife policies that are harmonized

across the sub-region.

In order for wildlife to be sustainably used for food or recreation, monitoring of

populations, including threats, health status, off-take, and habitat condition, must

be carried out. The Service supports monitoring elephant populations in this area

through the CITES Monitoring of the Illegal Killing of Elephants (MIKE) project.

As part of this program, information acquisition, transmission, storage, analysis,

12

and interpretation is being developed. This approach is an efficient way to monitor

certain bushmeat species in key areas. Within existing resources, the Service could

be of assistance in building these essential capacities among range states and local

communities. Linking this effort and the CBWG mandate would enable a harmonization of efforts and efficient use of limited resources and personnel.

Protected areas form the nucleus of wildlife management in Central Africa, and

may play a vital role in a source and sink@ model. This model describes a system

that allows protected areas to act as a sources@ of wildlife, that when reaching carrying capacity, could move outward into multi-use forests, where they could be sustainable harvested by local people. This model requires sound scientific information,

including wildlife monitoring, socioeconomic information about local conditions and

attitudes, and the ability to regulate hunting and trade.

In some respects this situation is not unlike that which faced the United States

prior to the institution of scientific wildlife management in the 1920s and 1930s.

At that time market hunting and loss of habitat had eliminated or nearly eliminated

many species here in the United States. Initiatives taken by American hunters and

their organizations led to the Migratory Bird Treaty, creation of State fish and wildlife agencies, the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration program, and establishment

of National Wildlife Refuges and state wildlife management areas to protect habitat.

With the resulting increase in knowledge of how to manage wildlife, dependable

funding and continuing strong support from the hunting community, even once severely depleted species of game animals are now plentiful. Few Americans, even

hunters, know that there were fewer than 500,000 white-tailed deer in the entire

United States in the 1920s, and that most States east of the Mississippi had no or

very limited deer seasons. At that time, hunting of wood ducks was banned, and

it was feared they would go extinct. They are now the most common breeding waterfowl in the East.

While the American conservation experience cannot be transplanted wholesale to

Africa, we have acquired a tremendous body of knowledge relating both to wildlife

management and to fostering a conservation ethic among the hunting community

which can serve as models to be adapted to local conditions elsewhere. Equally important, we know from our own experience that these measures can work.

Finally, although anecdotal evidence identifies there is an existing problem concerning importation of bushmeat into the United States, there has yet to be a definitive review of the extent of the problem. It is important to work with partners internationally to identify how bushmeat is entering the United States and to develop

training programs for customs agents in the countries of origin to control the export

of bushmeat from the source.

Mr. Chairman, the Service appreciates your interest in the critical problem of illegal bushmeat consumption and trade. We look forward to working with you and

members of the Committee to seek ways to address this crisis. This concludes my

testimony. I will be pleased to respond to any questions you may have.

[Attachments to Mr. Stansell’s statement follow:]

13

14

15

16

17

18

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you very much, Dr. Stansell.

Mr. Graham?

STATEMENT OF JAMES A. GRAHAM, PROJECT MANAGER,

CENTRAL AFRICA REGIONAL PROGRAM FOR THE ENVIRONMENT, U.S. AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Mr. GRAHAM. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. I would like to

thank you for inviting me to testify. If I could, I would like to have

my written testimony submitted for the record and instead provide

a brief summary of my statement.

Mr. GILCHREST. Without objection.

Mr. GRAHAM. Thank you.

As the project manager for USAID’s Central Africa Regional Program for the Environment, I am quite familiar with the problem

of commercial-scale bushmeat hunting in Sub-Saharan Africa.

Among the rural population in the Congo River Basin, until recently, people made money growing and selling rice, cotton, cacao,

coffee, and peanuts. With farming unprofitable and off-farm jobs

difficult to come by, many rural people with access to the forest

have resorted to commercial hunting and trading of bushmeat. The

move toward bushmeat has occurred because high returns can be

realized from a relatively small investment. Wildlife is a free good

which is harvested when other alternatives to earn money are limited. Bushmeat is relatively inexpensive because hunters do not

pay costs of producing wildlife, as do farmers who raise livestock.

Moreover, logging companies have opened up once-isolated forests, providing hunters with easy access to abundant wildlife and

traders with cheap transportation, which in turn reduces bushmeat

production costs and increases supply to urban markets. Rampant

availability of firearms as a spinoff from political insecurity in the

region has made harvesting bushmeat easy.

Though habitat loss is often cited as the primary cause of wildlife

extinction, over the next 5 to 10 years commercial bushmeat hunting will constitute the most immediate threat to wildlife conservation in Central Africa. At current levels of exploitation, this will result in the progressive depletion and local extinction of most species of apes and other primates, large antelope, and elephant from

hunted forests.

19

Moreover, hunting indirectly impacts the forest by: first, threatening the survival of forest carnivores that rely on bushmeat species as prey; and, two, significantly reducing the number of seeddispersing animals, thus changing tree species regeneration rates

and forest structure and composition. The direct and indirect impacts of this unsustainable hunting will have both immediate and

long-term adverse impacts on the structure and function of the forest.

For example, while rates of deforestation in the region are currently low, it is estimated by CARPE that forest cover may decline

by between 29 and 46 percent by the year 2050. The transmission

of disease from animals to humans is also well documented.

Bushmeat consumption may place people in increased jeopardy of

contracting and transmitting animal-derived diseases or other

emerging pathogens.

USAID’s CARPE program has supported preliminary initiatives

in several areas to blunt the trend toward increased bushmeat consumption. CARPE partners, among whom you will hear from

WWF, WCS, CI, and the Fish and Wildlife Service already, have

recently worked to help CARPE in creating CITES, the Convention

on International Trade in Endangered Species, Bushmeat Working

Group, which attempts to exchange information on bushmeat activities among the Congo Basin states.

USAID is also directly supporting gorilla conservation activities

that include several efforts to ensure that primates are not hunted

for bushmeat in locations in Central Africa. In addition, USAID

conducts a number of health and nutrition programs in the Congo

River Basin that have the effect of combating the spread of diseases stemming from practices such as the consumption of

bushmeat.

In conclusion, I would note that the bushmeat crisis is only a

symptom of a much greater problem of the lack of sustained development in the Congo Basin. The solution to the bushmeat crisis

will only be achieved by fully involving Africans in undertaking essential broad development actions, thus raising their overall standard of living to allow them to secure the alternative sources of protein.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would be happy to answer any questions.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Graham follows:]

Statement of James A. Graham, Project Manager, Central Africa Regional

Program for the Environment, U.S. Agency for International Development

Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Committee, I would like to

thank you for inviting me to testify about the environmental problems confronting

the Congo River Basin in light of the growing trend of bushmeat consumption in

the region. As the project manager for the U.S. Agency for International Development’s (USAID) Central Africa Regional Program for the Environment (CARPE), I

am quite familiar with the problem of bushmeat consumption in sub–Saharan

Africa.

While wildlife has been hunted for food throughout the history of human existence, only in the last several years has bushmeat become commercialized [What

does this mean, ‘‘become monetized’’? Can we say this more clearly?], and consequently, an important source of income in Central Africa. Among the rural population in this region, until recently, people made money growing and selling rice,

cotton, cacao, coffee, and peanuts. Over the past 20 years, however, livelihoods have

suffered as commodity prices have plummeted and increasingly poor road systems

20

have made it more difficult and costly to transport goods to market. With farming

unprofitable and off-farm jobs difficult to come by, many rural people with access

to the forest have resorted to the commercial hunting and trading of bushmeat.

The move toward bushmeat has occurred because high returns can be realized

from a relatively small investment. Firearms, which have become abundant as a result of assorted civil conflicts, and other items, such as snares, are readily available

for use in the hunting of game for bushmeat. Furthermore, wildlife is a free good.

Increasing urban populations have fueled the demand for bushmeat and while these

populations have grown, their buying power has declined with the weakening regional economy. Families that were once able to afford beef, chicken, and pork now

have shifted to typically less expensive wildlife as their primary source of protein.

Bushmeat is relatively inexpensive because hunters do not pay the costs of producing wildlife, as do farmers who raise livestock. Moreover, logging companies have

opened up once-isolated forests, providing hunters with easy access to abundant

wildlife and traders with cheap transportation, which in turn reduces bushmeat production costs and increases supply to urban markets.

Though habitat loss is often cited as the primary cause of wildlife extinction, over

the next 5 10 years, commercial bushmeat hunting constitutes the most immediate

threat to wildlife conservation in Central Africa. The scale of commercial hunting

required to supply large, rapidly growing urban populations with meat is now exceeding levels that can be tolerated by most large-bodied, slow-reproducing forest

animals. At current levels of exploitation, this will result in the progressive depletion and local extinction of most species of apes and other primates, large antelope,

and elephant from hunted forests. Only small, rapidly reproducing animals such as

rodents and the smallest of antelope are likely to survive the pressure from commercial hunters.

Moreover, hunting indirectly impacts the forest by (1) threatening the survival of

forest carnivores such as leopards, golden cats, crowned eagles, and snakes that rely

on bushmeat species as prey; and (2) significantly reducing the number of seed dispersing animals, thus changing tree species regeneration rates and forest structure

and composition. The direct and indirect impacts of this unsustainable hunting will

likely have both immediate and long-term adverse impacts on the structure and

function of the forest. For example, while the rates of deforestation in the region

are currently low, it is estimated by CARPE that forest cover may decline by between twenty-nine and forty six percent by 2050. In addition, bushmeat consumption may place people in increased jeopardy of contracting and transmitting animalderived (epizootic) diseases or other emerging pathogens. For instance, by eating a

partially cooked chimpanzee a bushmeat consumer could contract a fatal disease

such as Ebola. This transmission of disease from animals to humans is well documented, with brucellosis and toxoplasmosis serving as two additional examples.

Today, bushmeat continues to be an economically important food and trade item

for as many as 30 million poor rural and urban people in the Congo Basin. In Central Africa, over 1 million metric tons of bushmeat are consumed each year the

equivalent of almost 4 million cattle. A hunter can make the equivalent of $300

$1,000 per year more than the average household income for the region. This income

figure is also comparable to the salaries paid to park officials, leaving them susceptible to graft. Traders, transporters, market sellers and restaurateurs also benefit

from the commercial trade in bushmeat, and in combating this problem, the USG

must acknowledge that all of these incomes would decline if laws against the trade

were strictly enforced. As demand for bushmeat increases, more people will be encouraged to become involved in the trade, increasing the pressure on wildlife populations, threatening the survival of rare species, and jeopardizing access of future

families to the nutritional and income benefits from non-endangered wildlife.

Rising demand for bushmeat, lack of income-generating options for rural and

urban communities, the absence of affordable and acceptable substitutes, the opening up of ‘‘frontier’’ forests by logging and mining companies, the complicity of government lawmakers and law enforcers, and the fact that almost anyone can go

hunting anywhere without restriction are the most important factors driving commercial hunting and working against wildlife conservation. On top of all of this

there is an emerging link between what is becoming known as ‘‘illegal logging’’ and

the bushmeat trade. While ‘‘illegality’’ is at times a somewhat murky concept in the

Congo Basin—in that the enforcement of many laws often serves more as an inducement to pay bribes than to benefit the state—much logging is done outside strict

application of the laws. Bushmeat (including the meat of endangered species) is

gathered as ‘‘value added’’ to logging activity. Increased attention devoted to ‘‘illegal

logging’’ may in time, however, have a dampening effect on the worst excesses of

the bushmeat trade.

21

International awareness and support for control of the bushmeat trade was virtually non-existent until the late 1990s, and it is urgent that concerned individuals

and conservation groups work with an expanded group of government personnel and

other key decision makers to convince them of the significance of the bushmeat crisis. They also must cultivate the political will to ensure that adequate financial resources and professional capacity are provided to address the problem. Nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), governments, and industry are awakening to the

challenge, and are currently seeking ways to address the bushmeat crisis at the

local, national, and international level. Their pilot initiatives include working with

logging companies to reduce or halt the flow of bushmeat from concessions and to

minimize employee reliance on bushmeat as a source of food and supplementary income; convincing donors to increase their long-term support for protected area management; piloting projects to provide consumers with affordable and palatable alternatives to bushmeat; encouraging governments to develop legislation and law enforcement capacity appropriate to the local context; and facilitating collaboration

among the numerous organizations and agencies working in the region.

USAID’s CARPE program has supported preliminary initiatives in several of

these areas. CARPE partners have recently worked to create the Convention on

International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) Bushmeat Working Group

(CBWG), which attempts to exchange information on bushmeat activities among the

Congo Basin states. The CBWG is composed of representatives from a half dozen

Central African countries. The national representatives are the heads of the respective wildlife divisions of the individual countries and each nation has appointed a

national bushmeat officer. The organization plans to set up a regional coordinator

in Cameroon who will work with the member countries to develop and execute a

series of actions to limit the bushmeat trade. Current efforts include: national wildlife policy reviews; improving local understanding of the details of production sites,

transport routes, and border crossing points; a study of the status of various regulatory mechanisms within forestry concessions; and ways to improve information exchange and the harmonization of laws among the countries. The CBWG will also

be responsible for developing and implementing a region-wide awareness campaign

regarding the bushmeat trade. USAID is also directly supporting gorilla conservation activities that include efforts to ensure that these primates are not hunted for

bushmeat in three locations in Central Africa. We are doing this by providing our

U.S. private voluntary organization partners with $1.5 million in each of the two

past fiscal years.

USAID also conducts a number of health and nutrition programs in the Congo

River Basin that have the effect of combating the spread of diseases stemming from

practices such as the consumption of bushmeat. As I mentioned earlier in my testimony, wildlife, particularly wild primates, harbor viruses that can be transmitted

between species. For example, outbreaks of diarrhea have been associated with the

consumption of bushmeat. USAID supports a wide range of health and nutrition

programs in the Congo River Basin aimed at reducing the morbidity and mortality

of infectious diseases. These programs include diarrheal disease control, prevention

of tuberculosis, polio eradication and routine immunization, integrated disease surveillance and epidemic preparedness and response.

In conclusion, I would note that the bushmeat crisis is only a symptom of the

much greater problem of the lack of sustained development in the Congo Basin.

With burgeoning populations, deteriorating terms of trade for most primary products, insecurity, and dilapidated infrastructure, much of the Congo Basin has a

lower standard of living than at independence more than 40 years ago. The ‘‘solution’’ to the bushmeat crisis will only be achieved by fully involving Africans in undertaking essential broad development actions, thus raising their overall standard

of living to allow them to secure the alternative sources of protein.

Thank you. I would happy to answer your questions.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Mr. Graham.

A couple of months ago, I was in Africa and we went to visit it,

some for a couple of days, some for just a few hours, I believe close

to 13 countries. And the statement by a petite German nun in an

AIDS clinic in Ethiopia, Addis Ababa, she was a dentist in Germany and gave that up to find a much more satisfying way to find

meaning in life, so she went to an AIDS clinic for children in Ethiopia. She said ‘‘Africa goes through three cycles, and three cycles

22

only: drought, war, and disease. And each one of those has their

own devastating ramifications and causes.’’

So we are engaged in a very, very difficult enterprise that, unless

we get the cooperation from vast numbers of people, including governments and nonprofits and the people who are looking to find

some type of work, some type of food, some type of dignity, and

those that invest in opportunities in Africa, which would be the

miners, the loggers, essentially foreign governments, I guess we are

going to have a tough road to hoe—not impossible but we just want

to be as important a part of that strategy as humanly possible.

Mr. Burnam, can you tell us about how many pilot projects there

are in this arena dealing with the bushmeat problem?

Mr. BURNAM. No, I don’t have an exact number. I think the witness from the World Wildlife Fund might be able to fill you in on

their activities. This particular project has been going on for about

3 years, and it is sort of widely regarded as a potential model for

the region. I know across the border in Cameroon and the Central

African Republic, there are also eco-guards and there is cooperation

between the eco-guards in this trinational area. But my impression

is the pilot projects are just sort of getting off the ground.

Mr. GILCHREST. So this particular pilot project that you went

to—

Mr. BURNAM. Yes.

Mr. GILCHREST. —there are eco-guards there as well?

Mr. BURNAM. There are 39 eco-guards.

Mr. GILCHREST. How are they paid?

Mr. BURNAM. They are paid partly by the logging concession and

also by the NGO’s who are funded also by CARPE.

Mr. GILCHREST. What is the logging concession? Is that locally

owned? Is that foreign owned?

Mr. BURNAM. No, it is actually a Swiss holding company. It is

one of the major logging companies in the area. Most of the logging

companies are—

Mr. GILCHREST. When you say one of the largest logging companies in the area, does that go beyond the Congo?

Mr. BURNAM. I’m not sure exactly what their holdings are. There

are a number of major French and European logging companies

that work—

Mr. GILCHREST. But they are fairly substantial?

Mr. BURNAM. Oh, yes. There are also sort of fly by-night logging

companies.

Mr. GILCHREST. They are the fly by-night logging company?

Mr. BURNAM. There are some, yes.

Mr. GILCHREST. Oh, there are some.

Mr. BURNAM. Yes. One of the problems is if a responsible company increases costs by 3 or 4 percent, can they compete with the

fly by-night ones? And that is a problem. But I do think that having the concession there with the eco-guards and the controls they

place on the wildlife harvesting is very important. It is encouraging, and I think more projects like this need to be started up.

Mr. GILCHREST. What are the other sources of protein? I guess

if the eco-guards are fairly well paid and there is a bit of an infrastructure there for employment for the loggers, but we don’t want

people to eat the bushmeat, and agriculture is not working very

23

well or has disappeared, do they have a plan right now for sources

of food for the people in this region?

Mr. BURNAM. Well, the plan really ensures that the local residents have adequate supplies of bushmeat. I mean, you don’t need

to cut them off entirely. There are hunting laws. They hunt in certain zones in certain seasons, just the way you would in the U.S.

Mr. GILCHREST. Who enforces that?

Mr. BURNAM. The eco-guards and the logging company. And

some of them—some of the people turn in their firearms outside

hunting season so they won’t be caught, they won’t be tempted. So

it is really—there are a lot of controls. The alternative sources of

protein, vegetable gardens, they are trying to work, as you would

know, more effectively on the poultry farms, which are a problem

in Africa because of viruses, but they are trying to work on poultry

farms. They are bringing in beef in small quantities. I was told

anecdotally that the price of bushmeat on the market has doubled,

which is a sign that, you know, the controls of bushmeat can raise

the price. A lot of it is price. The bushmeat, as Mr. Graham pointed

out, is pretty cheap. It is pretty cheap to harvest, and it is pretty

cheap on the market. And so if you have got the price of chicken

and the price of beef—they even have a snail project going on. You

get those things to—

Mr. GILCHREST. Peanuts, do peanuts grow there?

Mr. BURNAM. Pardon me?

Mr. GILCHREST. Peanuts?

Mr. BURNAM. Peanuts, I don’t know.

Mr. GILCHREST. That wouldn’t work there.

Mr. BURNAM. I am not sure. But they—a lot of it is price and

education, and the people of the area, they love the wildlife. They

really don’t want to see—they don’t want to lose their wildlife. So

there is a lot of support for the program from the people in the

area, once they are educated as to the nature of the problem. So

I think it is a very promising concept.

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Graham, are you familiar with the pilot

project that Mr. Burnam is talking about?

Mr. GRAHAM. Yes, I am familiar with it because it is with one

of our CARPE partners that it is being implemented.

Mr. GILCHREST. Who is the partner?

Mr. GRAHAM. I believe it is WCS in this particular area, if it is

the same project. This is a project that has basically brought—it

was a very innovative project on the part of WCS, Wildlife Conservation Society of New York, bringing together what I would like

to characterize as a reformed lumber baron who had his difficulties

in court, et cetera, in Europe and has basically come around a long

way to being antagonistic to national parks and to game preservation to now being very cooperative. And I think the WCS

deserves—

Mr. GILCHREST. How did that happen?

Mr. GRAHAM. I think WCS deserves high credit for inducing him

to be a cooperator.

Also, the Government of Congo has cooperated a great deal with

the evolution of this project, as has a small eco-tourism organization called Safari International. The four of them got together and

have basically created a large area in North Congo which can serve

24

the multiple requirements that are necessary for the game to continue to exist. It is, as Mr. Burnam has pointed out, it is possible

to continue to harvest a very moderate amount of bushmeat for the

local needs. The biggest issue is what happens when that bushmeat

starts to go into the urban areas where the demand is high, the

price is high, and the production just skyrockets.

Mr. GILCHREST. When you say bushmeat—I understand that we

still hunt deer here. They trap fox, possum, et cetera, all over the

country. And it makes sense to allow local people to continue to

harvest moderate amounts of bushmeat for consumption. Would

you include gorillas in that bushmeat?

Mr. GRAHAM. No, sir. I believe that in most—the range of the

various different kinds of gorillas, the four major divisions within

the gorilla community, there is only one where it isn’t severely endangered, and that is in the area of western lowland. But even in

that area, it is by no means a situation where it would be the kind

of thing that you could go out and have your—like a deer hunt.

There should not be an open season on gorillas under any circumstances.

Mr. GILCHREST. In reading and preparing for the hearing today,

it seemed that there was at least somewhere some evidence—and

I mentioned it in the opening statement—about restaurants in various parts of the country that serve exotic meals and in some cases

maybe even gorilla meat.

What is done in those countries—Europe, Japan, or the United

States—as far as enforcement is concerned in dealing with these

international agreements to not deal in endangered species? Are

you aware of any restaurant—or any effort to pursue the restaurants?

Mr. GRAHAM. No, sir, I am not aware of any; in this country I

am not familiar. I have seen menus in Africa that include a number of animals that I don’t choose to eat and I am not sure I would

want to digest. But the issue that you bring up I would defer to

Dr. Stansell because it really falls under the CITES; transportation

of gorillas in any way, whether they are dead, in a diplomatic bag

or whatever, is strictly against CITES. And I would defer—

Mr. GILCHREST. Dr. Stansell, can you tell us what the Fish and

Wildlife Service is doing in that area?

Dr. STANSELL. Yes, Mr. Chairman, thank you. As I said in my

testimony, there are literally dozens of species that are utilized for

bushmeat. Some of those are fairly common throughout the continent. Some of those are very rare and very limited. Through the

Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, we have

identified those species that are particularly threatened or endangered as a result of international trade, which include species like

gorillas, elephants, and some of the crocodile species. There is a

complete commercial ban on the trade in their meat for any reason.

And the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service aggressively enforces those

kinds of imports into the United States.

I would say the Convention, however, is made up of 158 parties

now, and the strength of that Convention is based on the ability

of those individual parties to do the enforcement. You could very

well see species that are technically listed on the Convention appear in a situation like in a restaurant, but hopefully not here in

25

the United States. In fact, we have made a few cases in the United

States on certain species that were illegally imported. So I think

it is a problem and it is outside the United States. I think there

are—

Mr. GILCHREST. Has there ever been a restaurant cited or fined

or closed down because they have served gorilla meat or some other

type of endangered species?

Dr. STANSELL. Not in the United States, and I don’t know about

other countries and their enforcement. We have much stricter domestic measures under the Endangered Species Act that also cover

a number of these species.

Mr. GILCHREST. Is there any way to know whether the trade in

bushmeat, especially to restaurants in foreign countries, is widespread, is a small part of the bushmeat trade problem?

Dr. STANSELL. I believe that it is a growing part of the bushmeat

problem, even if it affects species that are fairly common and not

gorillas. It feeds the demand and the desire for others to have access to those kinds of species. So I think that this is an example

of how the process is growing now that we are actually seeing these

kinds of products showing up in developed countries and in international markets far beyond the borders of Africa.

We see this phenomenon in—not only Africa, but particularly

Southeast Asia, where a number of turtle species are going into the

food market. Our concern is that this is growing, and perhaps

bushmeat in Latin America may be the next focal point. So it is

leading the demand.

Mr. GILCHREST. As we move to try to find solutions to this problem and create a strategy, the United States, I guess, works with

various elements in the international community. How does State,

Fish and Wildlife, and USAID collaborate in this arena?

Dr. STANSELL. I can certainly start to answer your question. Fish

and Wildlife Service has, through at least the two grant programs

that are directly related to conservation of elephants and great

apes, we are able to provide actual—

Mr. GILCHREST. Well, actually what I meant was do the three of

you or your representatives collaborate on the U.S. end as you engage the international community? Mr. Burnam, Dr. Stansell, and

Mr. Graham, do you three or your representatives discuss this

issue in both the particulars and the big picture, maybe as far as

you have a region in the Congo or you are dealing with Liberia or

Sierra Leone or Guinea or some other place, in your strategy do

you include the medical community for the problems of disease? Do

you include the Department of Agriculture to create an agricultural

corridor or an agricultural zone to tap the kinds of potentials that

could be a food source? Do you collaborate with the enforcers, the

eco-guards, you know, the full range—the nonprofits that are out

there? Is there a fairly coordinated, united front from the U.S. perspective?

Mr. BURNAM. Well, Mr. Chairman, forest law enforcement has

been a major diplomatic initiative of the U.S. Department of State.

In fact, President Bush has offered to help developing nations combat illegal logging. And as we began to look at that issue, we realized that the illegal trade in wildlife is intimately related to illegal

logging because of the connection I tried to bring out in my testiVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:10 May 06, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 80615.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
26

mony. So we have been studying the issue on an interagency basis.

Jim and I were in the Congo for a planning meeting on forest law

enforcement. That is what we were there for. But as soon as you

take up the issue of forest law enforcement, you realize logging is

both sort of a problem and a solution. It is a problem because it

opens up the roads, but it also offers the opportunity to do some

of the things that the CARPE program and WCS and others have

been working on.

So there is a good deal of attention in the Administration to this

problem, which has been heightened by your hearing, and—

Mr. GILCHREST. Did you say ‘‘tension’’ in the Administration or

‘‘attention’’?

Mr. BURNAM. I am sorry. Attention to it.

Mr. GILCHREST. Attention.

[Laughter.]

Mr. BURNAM. Oh, there is no tension in this area. I am glad you

corrected the record.

Mr. GILCHREST. When we look at this issue—and I don’t want to

broaden it beyond the scope of the hearing, necessarily. But we are

looking at an area of the world where there is difficulty because of

the banking system. The economic infrastructure, in some cases, is

totally absent. The cultural differences of private property versus

no concept of private property, the investment potential, there is

just a myriad of issues out there that make it very difficult to make

a connection where there is very steady progress.

When I go to my district, people are always saying, ‘‘What are

you doing to bring us jobs?’’ Well, you know, they say that to every

Member of Congress. But there are some aspects of economic

growth in this country that are pretty standard and almost taken

for granted. But if you move into an arena where you are working

in West Africa and Central Africa, in much of Africa, it seems that

you are starting at the very beginning. Each decade we start at the

very beginning to try to develop something that will take hold.

As you work with these governments—and I would assume probably there is a great deal being done. And I guess to bring the

point home, when I was in Addis and in Mozambique and a number of other countries, and we sat down with members of parliament or the prime minister, there was an overwhelming sense

of trials and the difficulties that lie ahead in stabilizing governments and countries where what we take for granted is absent almost in its entirety.

So would State, would USAID, and the myriad of programs that

you have throughout the continent, as you move through with

these reborn logging folks and local people and create in some way

a sense of a stable government based in the early stages on the

rule of law, equal opportunity, representative democracy, the concept of private property, those kinds of things?

Mr. BURNAM. I think you have focused very eloquently on the

factors that need to be addressed. You know, the Administration

believes that sustainable development has three pillars: the environmental, the economic, and the social. And you really have to—

all those three pillars have to be strong if you are going to have

sustainable development. You cannot have—you cannot just draw

a line on a map and create a park and say, OK, we have protected

27

biodiversity. You have got to have the economic and the social component. As you pointed out, you have to provide a better livelihood

for the people and a better income for the people.

Some of the forests in Central Africa are still relatively untouched. The resources that are there, many people within the

Congo Basin themselves are unaware of. There are waterfalls that

were discovered last June. There is a vast area here of untouched

moist forest, but riddled with logging concessions at the moment.

And so the question is—

Mr. GILCHREST. Where did the logging concessions come from?

Mr. BURNAM. From the government. The government will—this

are national—

Mr. GILCHREST. And this is a source of revenue for the government?

Mr. BURNAM. The government, in some cases, yes, it is viewed

as a source of revenue, although the concessions are often simply

given out with the expectation that the economic development,

which—

Mr. GILCHREST. Is there any criteria that the government uses

to issue these concessions?

Mr. BURNAM. Yes, there are.

Mr. GILCHREST. Such as conservation—

Mr. BURNAM. Yes, and most of the governments have within the

past few years revised or are in the process of revising their forestry laws.

I guess the point I am trying to make, in the Congo we are kind

of—we are at the fork in the road, and the question is which way

do we go. Do we move toward a system of sustainable forestry with

controls on wildlife harvesting? Or do we keep going down the road

of basically, you know, unregulated activity? So I think it is a

very—and the game isn’t over yet. There are a lot of opportunities

to build on what the CARPE program has already done. And so I

think it is a place where we should be focusing our attention and

where the kind of focused effort that you are calling for is, in fact,

needed.

Mr. GILCHREST. Do you have any recommendations for the Congress in this regard?

Mr. BURNAM. Well, we will come back here with recommendations if we develop some.

Mr. GILCHREST. Dr. Stansell? Mr. Graham?

Mr. GRAHAM. I didn’t have recommendations for the Congress. I

just wanted to underline the partnership among the three of us,

our institutions. I would bring to your attention a book that the

CARPE project has put down lessons learned over the last 5 years,

and I believe that this supports what Mr. Burnam has indicated,

that we are at a fork in the road. We have learned a lot about the

kinds of issues that are taking place in the Congo Basin, broadly

put, and also in detail on the bushmeat crisis. And I believe that

the partnership, the three institutions that are sitting here are collaborating formally and informally to try to address these. And I

just wish for you to realize that this is a process that is going

ahead.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you very much.

Dr. Stansell?

28

Dr. STANSELL. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would only add

that this is an extensive problem, as you have indicated, that really

gets at the heart of the social structure on the continent.

That said, I would hope that we didn’t lose sight of the fact that

there is an awful lot that we are doing, there is an awful lot that

we can continue to do, while we are trying to sort out all of the

bigger issues, the bigger social issues that underlie this crisis. So

I would just ask that we continue to support, to the extent that we

can, the collaborative efforts that we have got going. We have participated in a dozen or so projects through our various grant programs that really have provided—

Mr. GILCHREST. How much money is in the grant programs?

Dr. STANSELL. Right now we have $1 million in our elephant grant program, $1 million in our great apes program, and—

Mr. GILCHREST. These grants go to—

Dr. STANSELL. These grants go to on-the-ground projects, either

through participating nongovernmental organizations or working

directly with the African governments. And they really do bring—

it is a small focus, but they bring a focus to the kinds of solutions

that we have talked about today. A perfect example is through

CARPE we have collaborated in providing additional funds for

game guards, some very specific things that can be done today to

achieve a solution to those problems.

Mr. GILCHREST. Would you say a country like Liberia is lost or

is there anybody working in Liberia right now? Can that country

and its wildlife be saved?

Dr. STANSELL. I don’t know specifically about activities in Liberia, but I do know enough about the country to know that the answer is yes. Habitat is still there. If you look back at the turn of

the century in the United States and count the number of wild turkeys or white-tail deer or wood ducks, with all the market-based

hunting that was going on at that point in time. So I do believe

that we still have time, but it is running out, and the kinds of activities that we can move forward are going to be critical.

Mr. GILCHREST. Is USAID in Liberia right now? Are they back

in Liberia? Anybody in Liberia?

Mr. GRAHAM. I believe that USAID still has a presence associated with Liberia. I am not sure whether it is in Monrovia or in

a separate city serving the interests of trying to keep a presence

in Liberia. Exactly what it is doing in regard to the environment,

I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, I am not privy. I just simply don’t know.

Mr. GILCHREST. Sierra Leone?

Mr. GRAHAM. The same would be true in Sierra Leone. I do know

that USAID has activities that are associated with Sierra Leone,

but, again, I believe it is being managed out of another city.

Mr. GILCHREST. I see. So you get some brave souls to go in there.

So your sense of the crisis is it is truly solvable, it can get better?

Is there some hope that the world’s great species will survive

through this century?

Mr. BURNAM. Oh, yes. I think we are at a fork in the road, as

I said. You know, there are a lot more elephants in Africa than we

thought. When they first went into Gabon to survey the forests

there in the 1980’s, they thought there were only 5,000 elephants

in Africa. Well, there are about 100,000 elephants in Gabon. These

29

areas are—I was at one clearing where I saw 87 elephants in one

clearing. I mean, this Congo has enormous natural resources that

are there, and the whole question is: Are the governments and the

NGO’s and the other countries other than the United States, such

as Germany and France and Great Britain, are we going—the European Union has some programs in the area. Are we going to really focus our efforts now and try to build on what has been done

in the past 5 years? That is really the issue.

Mr. GILCHREST. The last question. I know there is just a myriad

of things to do and ways to approach this and dollars that need to

be spent and so on and so forth. Would you say—with all the

things that need to be done, what is the most difficult problem in

an ongoing solution? Is it competent, stable governments?

Mr. BURNAM. From my perspective, I think I would just cite one

factor as—I think competent, stable governments, respect for the

rule of law, are the heart of the problem. But, you know, simply

sending out eco-guards to catch poachers isn’t by itself going to do

the trick. So I think the political and the economic and the social

aspects have to be addressed in an integrated manner.

Mr. GILCHREST. Very good.

Dr. STANSELL. I think I would only add to that that, of course,

you have to have stability, at least to a degree, within the governments, but I think that the longer-term issue is developing a longterm land-use strategy and forest development strategy that would

address many of these kinds of issues, and then moving forward in

a collective global approach to try to get that kind of strategy implemented on a country-by-country basis where the stability would

allow it. We are talking about a vast area that has geopolitical

boundaries that are just that. We can almost pick and choose in

those areas where it is stable enough to work. So if we could collectively move forward, I would think that would probably be the

most important thing that we could do to achieve this.

Mr. GRAHAM. I would like to simply make a complementary addition to the previous two speakers, but also to add that one of the

real resources in Africa are the people. And the level of human resources there varies from very, very, very sound, professional, accomplished individuals to people who really are out in the bush, literally and figuratively. And we need to invest in those people.

One of the great things that is harming the investment in those

people, of course, is the diseases that are taking so many of them

away. But the human resource capacity building is an extremely

important complement to what the previous speakers have already

indicated.

Thank you, sir.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you very much. Gentlemen, this has been

very helpful and inspiring. We would like to stay engaged with

each of you as the process moves along over the coming decades.

Mr. Burnam, Dr. Stansell, and Mr. Graham, thank you very

much, gentlemen.

Mr. BURNAM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Dr. STANSELL. Thank you.

Mr. GRAHAM. Thank you.

Mr. GILCHREST. Our next panel will be: Mr. Marcellin Agnagna,

Chairman, CITES Bushmeat Working Group; Dr. Michael

30

Hutchins, Director of the Department of Conservation and Science,

American Zoo and Aquarium Association, and Co-Chairman,

Bushmeat Crisis Task Force; Dr. Richard Carroll, Endangered Species West and Central Africa Programs, World Wildlife Fund; Dr.

John Robinson, Vice President and Director of Wildlife Conservation Society; Dr. Mohamed Bakarr, Senior Technical Director, Center for Applied Biodiversity Science at Conservation International.

I think there are more seats, if everybody wants to sit down.

I want to thank the witnesses for traveling here now this afternoon. We look forward to engaging you in your testimony, and, Mr.

Agnagna, you may begin, sir.

STATEMENT OF MARCELLIN AGNAGNA, CHAIRMAN,

CITES BUSHMEAT WORKING GROUP

Mr. AGNAGNA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to

speak to this Committee concerning a very important challenge facing all Central Africans—the bushmeat crisis. But first I would like

you to excuse me because of my English. I usually speak French,

but I am going to try to express myself in English.

Mr. GILCHREST. If it becomes difficult, you can speak French.

Someone will interpret. But you are doing just fine, sir.

Mr. AGNAGNA. Thank you. I was going to say that the massive

African equatorial forest is the second largest humid tropical forest

in the world after the Amazon, both in size and its biological

wealth. It is an unequaled refuge for a number of species of fauna

and flora, some of which remain to be discovered, while others are

threatened with disappearance.

This immense natural resource heritage continues to be the principal source of meeting the vital needs of the peoples of the Central

African forest. The subsistence needs of yesterday have yielded to

an improper lucrative exploitation of natural resources beyond reasonable limits and, most notably, the commerce of bushmeat.

The situation is complicated and enhanced by the armed conflicts

and logging activity in the region and the accompanying proliferation of weapons that are now used for poaching. Networks of wellequipped and well-organized poachers empty the forests using Kalashnikov rifles to feed the urban centers, penalizing the village

populations that essentially depend on bushmeat for their survival.

Suddenly there is a food security problem at the village level, and

it is necessary that the new management strategies take into account traditional and long-forgotten knowledge.

The use of natural resources was essentially for subsistence.

Vital activities such as hunting, fishing, and cutting large trees in

the forest were well regulated and often subjected to rituals.

Species such as the leopard, bongo antelope, Nile crocodile, elephant, and the hippopotamus, to name a few, were revered by most

of the tribes in Central Africa, and often were animals totemic or

emblematic in the Bantu culture.

Although prized by most of the Africans, bushmeat is a commodity that was not consumed daily It constituted an exceptional

meal and was often reserved for special occasions. Even after the

advent of firearms at independence, the tradition always was respected. Every weapon that entered the forest was only authorized

31

to take a quota established by the chief. Bushmeat was not marketed but was consumed only inside the hunting territory.

Unfortunately, this effective type of management, adapted to the

African context, was rejected under the pretense of modernity or

economic development.

The economies of most countries of the region are supported either by oil or forest exploration. Logging constitutes the first or the

second source of income to most of the countries of the region.

Logging plays a very important role in growth of the illegal

bushmeat trade and constitutes a serious threat to wildlife. The

present situation is catastrophic in all the countries of Central

Africa. At the start, it was simply a matter of small quantities for

family usage, but this new type of city dwellers whose purchasing

power was growing with employment found in the city began passing larger orders. The existing market and the increased requests

provoked an unprecedented explosion of commerce of wild products,

bushmeat in particular. It was more or less in the same manner

that bushmeat found its place in the exotic restaurants of Western

cities, such as Paris, London, Brussels, New York, and Washington.

Some important efforts are underway in the region at the political level to mitigate the crisis, including establishment of consultative frameworks. The CEFDHAC, the COMIFAC, and the success

of the Yaounde Declaration are illustrations of regional political

will.

One action which is taking place is the CITES Bushmeat Working Group. Approved by the CITES Secretariat in April 2000, this

group has developed a five-point action plan and has secured the

basic funds to operate a central office with support from National

Bushmeat Officers. The five priority actions are: to review policy

and legislation in the region with reference to bushmeat and establish a harmonization of this legislation for the region; create a regionwide public awareness campaign regarding the impacts of the

illegal, commercial bushmeat trade and impacts on cultural heritage; develop a bushmeat trade monitoring system in conjunction

with the CITES/MIKE; establish a regional approach to wildlife

management and bushmeat control in logging concessions; and provide training and capacity building to bushmeat officers, ministry

personnel, and law enforcement agents regarding the bushmeat

trade.

It is important to note that the approach taken by this group is

not to forbid the consumption of bushmeat for those who actually

need it but, rather, to increase strategies of sustainable use while

developing alternative protein and income sources for local populations.

To attain this objective, there are needs for more time and resources than the CITES Bushmeat Working Group alone has available. The international community is being summoned, and the

Central African countries need international support to fight

against this scourge that not only is decimating the wildlife habitat

but is also a dangerous threat to the wildlife of the forest people—

threat to the life of the forest people, notably the Pygmies.

And to finish, I would say that the bushmeat trade kills the wildlife, but is also killing the village.

Thank you very much.

32

[The prepared statement of Mr. Agnagna follows:]

Statement of Marcellin Agnagna, Chair, CITES Bushmeat Working Group

The massive African equatorial forest, whose inhabitants are of Bantu Pygmy origin, dominates the Central Africa region. This humid tropical forest contains portions of six countries: Cameroon, Gabon, Equatorial Guinea, the Republic of Congo,

the Central African Republic, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. This forest

is the second largest humid tropical forest in the world after the Amazon, both in

size and its biological wealth. Various expeditions, scientific and other, conducted

in the region during the last decade, made apparent the immensity of the biological,

ecological and cultural potential of this forest of Central Africa. It is an unequaled

refuge for a number of species of fauna and flora, some of which remain to be discovered, while others are threatened with disappearance. In Democratic Republic of

the Congo, for example, more than 4,009 species of mammals, 1,086 species of birds,

and 1,060 species of fishes have been identified. In the Republic of Congo

(Brazzaville), 45 species of reptiles, more than 450 species of mammals, and 600

species have been identified.

This immense natural resource heritage continues to be the principal source of

meeting the vital needs of the peoples of the Central African forest. With no pastoral tradition, generations of forest dwellers through myths, beliefs and customs,

established sacred rules of management of the resources that are essential to their

survival. The rational or sustainable management notion, therefore, is not a new

concept for these peoples, who already by tradition were involved in the management and monitoring of such vital activities as fishing, hunting and gathering (i.e.

mushrooms, caterpillars, and wild fruit). Nevertheless today, all these sacred rules

are trampled under foot, on the pretense of modernism and economic development.

The subsistence needs of yesterday have yielded to an improper lucrative exploitation of natural resources beyond reasonable limits and most notably, the commerce of bushmeat.

In Central Africa, the bushmeat trade is currently one of the sources of income

for many of the inhabitants of forested areas. The development of logging has

brought relatively large amounts of money to formerly isolated areas and human

populations that were once exempt of excessive consumption habits. Poachers and

game traders now use logging roads and other transportation means to bring illegally captured meat to market in the cities. The thousands of workers and their

families, employed by the forestry companies, constitute a potential market for

bushmeat, especially as logging companies usually prefer to ignore their employees’

protein needs. This situation is complicated and enhanced by the armed conflicts of

the region and the accompanying proliferation of weapons that are now used for

poaching.

The commerce of bushmeat is suddenly the principal income source for a good

number of the inhabitants in areas that still hold wildlife. The conditions that favor

the development of this activity are numerous, among which are unemployment,

poverty, growing demand for the meat of wild animals (and thus, the existence of

the market), demographic growth, development of logging on a large scale and ignorance, among others.

The bushmeat trade takes on enormous proportions throughout all Central Africa.

In all the markets of the large urban centers such as Libreville, Yaounde ́, Bata,

Bangui, Kinshasa, Brazzaville, Pointe Noire, Malabo, or Douala, bushmeat is openly

and consistently sold, whatever the season, despite its illegality. The quantities are

disturbing and sufficiently illustrate the problem. In Pointe Noire, second largest

city and economical capital of the Congo, a study carried out in 1996 (PROGECAP)

estimated that 150,000 metric tons of bushmeat is consumed annually. It is certain

that the current rate is now double. Libreville, capital of Gabon, receives daily shipments of bushmeat by railway. About 1,200 metric tons of bushmeat flows into the

markets of Libreville daily. Bangui consumes about 120,000 metric tons of bushmeat

yearly; Bata, second largest city of Equatorial Guinea, daily offers a gruesome spectacle in its central market where transport vehicles bring piles of the whole animal

carcasses of all species. All the species are impacted and some are threatened with

extinction, notably the large animals such as duikers, gorillas, chimpanzees, and

elephants.

Everywhere in Central Africa, the bushmeat trade has become a true scourge that

threatens the survival of several wildlife species and is of greatest conservation concern. The scarcity of game around some forest towns forces the inhabitants to leave.

Networks of well equipped and well organized poachers empty the forests using Kalashnikov rifles to feed the urban centers, penalizing the village populations that

essentially depend on bushmeat for their survival. Suddenly there is a food security

33

problem at the village level, necessitating the use of more costly hunting methods

that most villagers cannot afford. Some villagers are obliged to constantly roam in

search of a better life in urban areas or forestry concessions. Although illegal in

most countries of the region, the bushmeat trade is expanding, with the governments lacking the capacity to enforce the laws. The international community is

being summoned. The Central African countries need international support to fight

against this scourge that not only is decimating their wildlife heritage, but is also

dangerous threat to the life of the forest peoples, notably the Pygmies. The

bushmeat trade kills the wildlife and the village.

The problem is complex, and the solutions cannot be found solely in classic conservation approaches. It is necessary, therefore, that new management strategies

take into account traditional and long-forgotten knowledge; a return to traditional

management seems inevitable. The participative management concept could be improved while taking into account the traditional values of forest peoples.

Important efforts are underway in the region at the political level, including the

establishment of consultative frameworks. The CEFDHAC (Conference on the Ecosystems of Dense and Humid Forests of Central Africa), COMIFAC (the Conference

of the Ministers in charge of the Forests of Central Africa), and the success of the

Yaounde ́ Declaration are illustrations of regional political will. Nevertheless, the

governments of the countries of this region do not have the means to deal with this

scourge. International support would be most welcome.

This political will is now augmented by the CITES Bushmeat Working Group [Appendix A] (CITES BWG), set up by Decision 11.166 of the Conference of the Parties

to CITES in Nairobi Kenya in April 2000. The CITES BWG brings together all the

Directors of the Central African Region, and their support staff, who are in charge

of wildlife management and protected areas. Since its inception, this group has met

several times with assistance of the international community, notably the Government of the United Kingdom, the United States, thought the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service (USFWS), and the Bushmeat Crisis Task Force (BCTF). An action plan was

developed and is being executed with funding of $135,000, obtained by the BCTF

from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. This financing, along

with support from USAID’s Central Africa Regional Program for the Environment

(CARPE), is being used to execute the action plan and also permits the installation

of a Regional Coordinator based in Yaounde ́, Cameroon.

The BCTF closely collaborates with the CITES BWG and is helping to find additional funds from international sources, as it is now an international problem. It is

not unusual to find African bushmeat in the restaurants of certain capitals such as

London, Brussels, New York, and Washington. Well organized distribution networks

allow the feeding of far-flung international markets The airlines that link Africa to

the West play a very important role in this traffic. Just some months ago, I flew

on an Air France flight from Brazzaville to Paris. To my surprise, I saw some passengers hurrying to embark with their accompanied luggage: suitcases full of

bushmeat and of smoked freshwater fish, within the full view and knowledge of the

customs officers that gladly helped to close the suitcases after their ‘‘inspection.’’

The practice takes place in almost all the airports of Central Africa. The domestic

airlines that connect large urban centers to the internal cities carry large quantities

of bushmeat, as do other means of transport such as trains and boats. This situation

is serious and demands the special attention of the international community.

TRADITIONAL MANAGEMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES.

To make a shift from classic conservation theory, we want here to focus on traditional management of the natural resources. In fact before and during the colonial

period, the people of Africa had established natural resource management systems

based on the respect of mythological beliefs. Every activity linked to the use of natural resources followed precise rules. It was not anarchical, but instead disciplined

and respectful of established order. The system worked well, it did not need law enforcement agents to assure respect for the rules because they were inviolable. Mankind treated nature with care because we were conscious that our survival depended

on it. The use of natural resources was essentially for subsistence. Vital activities

such as hunting, fishing, and cutting large trees in the forest were well regulated

and often subjected to rituals.

Traditional Hunting and Fishing: Traditional hunting was practiced for a long

time for subsistence and was subject to rules that varied from one ethnic group to

another. With the Bantu-speaking peoples of Central Africa, for example, every clan

or ethnic group had a territory or well delimited zone used for hunting. Access and

hunting could not take place without the authorization of the traditional chief. A

quota system existed by species and included some forbidden prey species. The beVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:10 May 06, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 80615.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
34

lief was that spirits protected certain forbidden species, the taboos and other myths

created beliefs surrounding them were inviolable barriers.

Respect for tradition was severe. Species such as the leopard, bongo antelope, Nile

crocodile, elephant, and the hippopotamus, to name a few, were revered by most of

the tribes in Central Africa, and often were animals totemic or emblematic in the

Bantu culture. Also, big game hunts were only practiced for special occasions. Killing an elephant, for example, took place with an agreement between neighboring

villages or clans. With the tribe of the ‘‘Kouyous’’ in the north of the Republic of

the Congo (Brazzaville), one organized a festival of folk dances and demonstrations

of strength during a week before the elephant hunting party. The hunters were chosen among the elite of the town and then were prepared. For a full week they received spiritual blessings that protected them against the forces of the evil. Only

after all these formalities did the hunters enter the forest to confront an elephant.

The clan chiefs accompanied them at the end of the hunt to give them some final

blessings. Every hunter carried with him a full measure of provisions and protection

of amulets (talismans) and three to four previously-prepared and blessed spears of

mystical strength. It was then that hunters began the long march tracking elephants. A large bull elephant ‘‘Kamba’’ was sought. Once the tracks were found, he

was followed to the end. The endowed hunters were able to make themselves invisible ‘‘Indzombi’’ and approached the beast and finally pierced him in vital areas with

their well sharpened spears, before disappearing into the forest and again reappearing in a place that was identified in advance. After reappearing, they returned to the assault by following the blood tracks and killing the animal if it has

withstood the first attack. This process could repeat itself as much as necessary.

The parties hunting small game were organized in forms of a collective between

the inhabitants of a village or of neighbors, who used nets, traditional weapons such

as spears, lances, harpoons, and hunting dogs. The meat was distributed freely

among the inhabitants of the town, with every family receiving its share, however

small is was.

Although prized by most of the Africans, bushmeat is a commodity that was not

consumed daily. It constituted an exceptional meal and was often reserved for special occasions (family gatherings, initiation ceremonies, festivals of traditional

dances, etc.). Twenty years ago, this was practiced in most villages of the region.

Even after advent of firearms at Independence, the tradition always was respected.

The names of the possessors of firearms was known in every town. The use of these

weapons was verified and monitored. Every weapon that entered the forest was only

authorized to take a quota established by the chief. The arm owner could only sell

the part that was surplus to his need. Bushmeat was not marketed but was consumed only inside the hunting territory.

I remember during my youth in northern Congo, that my grandfather, with the

name of notable Agnagna, was customary chief of the region of ‘‘Loko’’ in the area

of Owando (Fort Rousset). The notable Agnagna was a powerful and respected traditional chief that embodied the life of the inhabitants of Loko. It was he who gave

the order to hunt, and it was to him that all hunters had to present the rewards

of the hunt before any meat was eaten. He received the right hind leg and the trophy (horns, skins or head). The trophies were collected and kept in a sacred place

where access was uniquely reserved to the initiated. A fire was lit there in permanence for the conservation of the trophies. The trophies were exposed during period

ceremonies and served to inventory the number of game hunted during a given period. It was also a customary heritage and symbol of strength.

The largest collection of trophies that I saw in my youth belonged to a big chief

of the tribe of the ‘‘Kouyous’’ by the name of ‘‘Etoumbakoundou’’. He lived in a village called Kouyougandza situated downstream of the city of Owando (former Fort

Rousset) on the river Kouyou. This collection included pieces of very big value of

which the dimensions were almost always records: antelope horns, leopard skins

and those of other animals, hippo teeth, cranes and cane cats, feathers of rare bird,

and elephant tusks. The notable Etoumbakoundou uniformly received visits from

white settlers (colonial administrators) and a few tourists. The visitors’ interest in

the trophies led them to take one or more before leaving. I remember in 1963, when

one of the last colonial administrators, whose name escapes me, the Commander of

the Prefecture of Likouala–Mossaka, visited Kouyougandza. He left with a gigantic

pair of elephant tusks. Six men were necessary to lift each tusk, whose weight may

have reached 120 kilograms. The boat used by the Commander could not bear the

weight of the tusks, and some passengers had to be left out and later transported

on a second trip.

I was greatly disappointed to note that at the time of my passage to

Kouyougandza in 1986, that all of the trophies had disappeared after the death of

the Chief Etoumbakoundou in 1974. An entire culture had disappeared.

35

Fishing in freshwater was also seasonal. For example, the draining of ponds for

fish followed a ritual. During the dry season of 1965, I witnessed the draining of

a pond called ‘‘Etsibi’’ in the zone of ‘‘Loko’’ under the authority of the notable

Agnagna. In fact, the Etsibi Pond had a diameter of approximately 50 meters, and

it articulated with the Kouyou River through a small canal that dried in dry season.

‘‘Etsibi’’ was forbidden to visit in period of the high waters. In it lived a large Nile

crocodile that only the Chief Agnagna could observe.

Baskets were used to drain the pond, and men, women, and children of the villages surrounding ‘‘Ossambou’’ camped around Etsibi during the event. Before the

draining of the pond, a ritual was conducted in which Chief Agnagna struck the surface of the water with a stick and ordered the gigantic crocodile to leave. One could

see this 6-meter long monster leave the pond and head toward the Kouyou River

using the canal. After this, the spectacle began. The quantity of fish collected was

enormous. The fish was smoked to conserve it for future needs. This is an example

of the manner used by one tribe to manage their natural heritage. The efficiency

of this traditional form of management was clearly established.

Unfortunately this effective type of management, adapted to the African context,

was rejected under the pretense of modernity or economic development. Now modern conservation laws have shown their limits and cannot alone solve the problem

of the management of natural resources in Central Africa. The customary knowledge

that has been long forgotten merits revival.

CURRENT SITUATION

The problem of managing forest resources in Central Africa gives rise today to

several questions. The economies of most countries of the region are supported either by oil or forest exploitation. Logging constitutes the first or second source of

income to most of the countries of the region. For example, in Gabon, where oil reserves are being exhausted, the plan is to then exploit the forest resources for wood.

The policy is to develop a logging industry, which is considered a means of development. Nevertheless, questions can be posed about the effect this policy will have

upon gross national product and on local human populations who are dependent on

the forest.

In Central Africa almost all the logging companies are foreign owned. They cut

and sell the wood on the international market while paying derisory taxes to the

national government. Wood is given up almost free of charge, while logging companies do not conduct reforestation procedures. The logging methods are devastating.

Some speak of selective cutting that consists of exploiting only the largest trees with

the highest commercial value. In the northern Congo for example, the most soughtafter species is of the genus Entandophragma (Sipo and Sapeli). It is not unusual

to see a road of several kilometers cut for a single sapeli tree. In the process, dozens

of other trees may be destroyed. The damage to the flora and fauna are huge. As

for the village communities, they seem to enjoy a short-lived well being as long as

there are desirable trees to cut. After that, they are left alone in a state of abject

poverty.

We can include some other negative effects of logging. The prospection teams and

other workers essentially nourish themselves with bushmeat. The forest roads and

the wood transport vehicles carry all sorts of forest products including elephant

ivory, animal skins and bushmeat. The logging work sites are transformed into immense cities wherein thousands of people reside. Merchants of all kinds spring up

because of the workers’ salaries. Basic goods are sold in small shops. But behind

the counters, merchants disregard the law and traffic in wildlife products such as

ivory and leopard skins.

In Pokola, northern Congo, for example, in a worksite created by the logging company CIB (Industrial Congolese Wood), the bushmeat trade is very well developed.

Despite the strong local demand, large quantities of bushmeat are transported out

of the country, notably to the neighboring Cameroon. Professional poachers install

themselves alongside the forest roads and quietly operate with the complicity of the

drivers of logging vehicles, who bring the illegal bushmeat to distant markets. All

the species are slaughtered without restriction, the large game is preferred as it

yields more profit. Even the species once protected by local taboos and beliefs such

as the Bongo antelope, are poached. In the Pokola bushmeat market, one can daily

find meat of almost all species of forest animals. The taboo myth was shattered with

the intermingling of cultures among people who arrived in the area to work for the

loggers.

Logging plays a very important role in growth of the illegal bushmeat trade and

constitutes a serious threat to wildlife. The forest roads open for removal of logs are

used by the poachers to reach game-rich areas that were previously inaccessible. In

northern Congo near the border with the Central African Republic in the zone

36

Enyele, where the logging company called ITBL operates, large camps of Central

African poachers are installed in permanent camps. They illegally hunt and traffic

bushmeat to feed the markets of Mbaiki and Bangui in the Central African Republic. It should be noted that the CAR once had forests rich in wildlife, but it has apparently been destroyed by the bushmeat trade. Central African hunters now focus

on Congo as a source of game.

Former soldiers of the army of former Zairean President Mobutu Sese Seko have

hidden arms in the villages downstream of Bangui and of Nzongo (in the DRC).

These stocks of munitions and arms are now used for poaching. These ex-soldiers

have become professional poachers and operate on well organized circuits, and in

certain cases, supported by the Central African Waters and Forests agents. Elephant poaching is very common in this zone, and their meat is sold in the CAR or

elsewhere. The Central African Waters and Forests agents extract an unofficial tax

that varies between 1,000 to 2,000 French CFA ($2 to 3$ US) on every 50 kg bag

of elephant meat that is then freely sold in the markets of Bangui, despite the elephant’s protected legal status.

The present situation is catastrophic in all the countries of the Central African

region. Tons of bushmeat are sold daily on the markets of the big urban centers.

In Bata, Equatorial Guinea for example, the daily bushmeat market contains hundreds of baboons piled up for sale. It is estimated that residents of neighboring

Libreville, Gabon consume more than 350,000 metric tons of bushmeat each year.

In witnessing this, one wonders if the Central African countries have game laws.

In fact, some of them have very good laws on paper, although other countries need

considerable revisions. However, none of them effectively regulate the commerce of

bushmeat, and it is sold openly under the eyes of the authorities whose job it is to

control the illegal trade.

WHY THE FOREST INHABITANTS OF CENTRAL AFRICA CONSUME

BUSHMEAT

As previously noted, the climatic and ecological conditions of the humid tropical

forest are hostile to raising cattle, and native people are obligated to rely on protein

from the forests and rivers. Over several generations, myths, traditions, and a cultural preference for bushmeat grew among the inhabitants of the forest. These days,

almost every family has some chickens. But poultry is used for the reception of special guests or saved for special ceremonies. Families prefer eating bushmeat.

Therefore, there is a problem caused by people’s food preference. Bushmeat often

is considered as of better quality by its consumers, and this seems justified if one

considers the low fat content of game meat. Still, the recent epidemics of Ebola or

HIV/AIDS may originate from the contact between humans and hunted animals.

This situation raises many questions: When did the bushmeat problem first appear?

Was it not the appearance of modernization? Did not the ancestors live in harmony

with nature? What does one say to the pygmies who have always lived in the forest?

Did they know of the problems of HIV and other pathologies of the modern world?

And what of the forest, wasn’t it a holy place before the penetration of machines

and other arsenals used to exploit her resources? Will bushmeat have to be forbidden for consumption? What alternatives are there for the people of the forest to eat?

The answers to these questions will edify the approach to developing solutions to

the bushmeat problem.

The peoples of the forest always kept their food habits even when they migrated

far from their region of origin. Most of the urban centers of the region are populated

by rural migrants who have not abandoned their habits. Even in the city they have

a tendency to keep their original food preferences such as bushmeat in the forest

zone, and grasshoppers, caterpillars and other in savannah zones). Suddenly illegal

dealings in forest products began developing (bushmeat, fruit and wild vegetables,

palm wine etc.) from the country towards the city. At the start it was simply a matter of small quantities for family usage, but this new type of city-dwellers whose

purchasing power was growing with employment found in the city began passing

larger orders. The existing market and the increased requests provoked an unprecedented explosion of commerce of wild products, bushmeat in particular. It was more

or less in the same manner that bushmeat found its place in the exotic restaurants

of western cities.

THE SOLUTIONS

The bushmeat crisis in Central Africa is a daily preoccupation regarding management and conservation of the forest resources in the region. All the actors, at the

political level, administrative, scientific and private became aware of the seriousness

of the problem and are working hard to look for solutions which will minimize impacts. In all the regional forums treating biodiversity conservation questions

37

bushmeat is always central to the discussion. As was expressed, political will to find

solutions to the management problems of the forest resources is evident in the region. Some encouraging regional initiatives include CEFDHAC, the COMIFAC and

the reformation of OCFSA (Organization for the Conservation of the Wildlife in

Africa). Nevertheless this political will is far from realizing its financial and equipment needs. The recommendations and other suggestions for solutions resulting

from these discussions have barely begun to be implemented.

One action which is taking place as was mentioned previously is the CITES

Bushmeat Working Group. Approved by the CITES Secretariat in April 2000 this

group has developed a five point action plan and has secured the basic funds to operate a central office with support from National Bushmeat Officers. The five priority actions of this group, represented by the directors of wildlife and protected

areas from all Central Africa are: to review policy and legislation in the region with

reference to bushmeat and establish a harmonization of this legislation for the region; create a region-wide public awareness campaign regarding the impacts of the

illegal, commercial bushmeat trade and impacts on cultural heritage; develop a

bushmeat trade monitoring system in conjunction with the CITES/MIKE (Monitoring Illegal Killing of Elephants); establish a regional approach to wildlife management and bushmeat control in logging concessions; and provide training and capacity building to bushmeat officers, ministry personnel, and law enforcement

agents regarding the bushmeat trade. Base funding for this initiative has been secured and a reauthorization of the group will be submitted at the next Conference

of the Parties in Santiago, Chile, November 2002.

It is important to note that the approach taken by this group is not to forbid the

consumption of bushmeat for those who actually need it but rather to increase strategies of sustainable use while developing alternate protein and income sources for

local populations. It will be important to eliminate the commercial aspect of this

trade and its impacts on wildlife populations.

To attain this objective, there are needs for more time and resources than the

CITES Bushmeat Working Group alone has available; the international community

is called upon to collaborate with African nations to address this crisis. The current

dimension of the bushmeat crisis surpasses the regional context and is indeed continental, the solutions to the problem cannot be found without a collaborative effort

of the international community.

APPENDIX A: CITES BUSHMEAT WORKING GROUP SUMMARY

INFORMATION

The CITES Bushmeat Working Group was recommended in Document 11.44 and

approved [Decision 11.166*] in Nairobi, Kenya in April 2000 at the 11th Conference

of the Parties (COP) for the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES).

The Working Group includes Cameroon, Central African Republic, Democratic Republic of Congo, Republic of Congo (Brazzaville), Equatorial Guinea and Gabon and

incorporates these countries as the case study region for underpinning the scope of

work and possible solutions for the bushmeat crisis. It also includes a wider range

of dissemination group countries, including: Benin, Coˆte d’Ivoire, Ghana, Republic

of Guinea (Conakry), Kenya, Liberia, Mali, Niger, Sierra Leone, Togo, Zambia.

The primary objectives of the CITES BWG are to:

• Set the scope of problems relating to bringing national and cross-border

bushmeat issues into the context of a sustainable and legal process;

• Work on identifying solutions that address the scope of problems;

• Facilitating the implementation process in achieving the solutions.

The CITES BWG held its first meeting in Douala, Cameroon in January 2001

where they set forth a scope of work and identified priority actions for the group.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service supported a meeting of the members of the core

working group along with representatives from dissemination group and donor countries during a special session of the BCTF Collaborative Action Planning Meeting

in May 2001 where opportunities for collaboration between BCTF and the CITES

BWG were identified.

The CITES BWG held a second formal meeting in Cameroon in July 2001 where

they established a framework for their priority actions, which formed the basis of

a joint BCTF CITES BWG funding proposal approved by the John D. and Catherine

T. MacArthur Foundation. With support from a USAID grant, the BCTF will again

be providing an opportunity for the CITES BWG members to meet at the E ́ cole de

Faune de Garoua [Garoua Wildlife College] in March 2002 during the bushmeat curriculum development workshop co-organized by the college and BCTF. During this

meeting the CITES BWG will set forth the framework for a three-year implementation plan for the joint proposal funded by the MacArthur Foundation to include

38

planning for: policy and legislation review, training for bushmeat monitoring and

database development, review of wildlife management authority structures, public

awareness campaigns in Central Africa, and developing wildlife management guidelines within logging concessions. As a result of the funding from the MacArthur

Foundation bushmeat officers in each of the six core countries and a regional coordinator will be supported for the next three years. Matching funds to fulfill the CITES

BWG efforts are being supplied by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service through a

grant from CARPE [Central African Regional Programme for the Environment,

USAID] and the UK Wildlife Management Authority.

The CITES BWG has made excellent progress toward developing regular communication among wildlife and protected area directors from the six core countries of

the Central Africa region. Having secured funding for priority activities they will

be able to develop databases regarding trade in bushmeat, harmonize legislation related to wildlife exploitation and trade, collate information for a regional perspective

on bushmeat trade, and raise awareness among the general public in Africa regarding the consumption and exploitation of wildlife. These steps will culminate in a set

of recommended solutions that can be ‘willingly implemented by range states’.

Decision 11.166 Available from: [http://www.cites.org/eng/decis/11/166.shtml]

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, sir.

Dr. Hutchins?

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL HUTCHINS, DIRECTOR/WILLIAM

CONWAY CHAIR, DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND

SCIENCE, AMERICAN ZOO AND AQUARIUM ASSOCIATION,

AND CO-CHAIRMAN, BUSHMEAT CRISIS TASK FORCE

Mr. HUTCHINS. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to testify today on the bushmeat crisis in Africa. I am here

today representing the Bushmeat Crisis Task Force, or BCTF.

BCTF is a coalition of 34 U.S.-based nongovernmental organizations and hundreds of individual experts all committed to resolving

the bushmeat crisis. While Africans have hunted and consumed

wildlife for millennia, it is only recently that hunting and trading

of wildlife has exploded into a multimillion-dollar industry. Millions of tons of animals are being killed and consumed annually,

including gorillas, chimpanzees, and elephants. This unsustainable

commerce has the potential to empty African landscapes of wildlife

in less than a generation.

The African bushmeat crisis is symptomatic of much deeper socioeconomic problems that are affecting the entire continent. The

complex causes of the bushmeat crisis, some of which you have

heard about today, are interrelated and include growing human

populations, widespread poverty, social and political instability,

lack of economic or protein alternatives, lack of law enforcement

capacity, modernized hunting technologies, and new transportation

systems that facilitate the movement of bushmeat from rural areas

into urban markets.

The effects of the bushmeat trade will certainly be catastrophic

for both people and wildlife. First, the commercial bushmeat trade

removes this important resource from the communities that are

most dependent upon it. Second, unsustainable hunting risks the

irreversible extinction of species across Africa. And, third, the loss

of keystone species could alter the structure and function of African

ecological systems.

Finally, as, again, you have heard before, butchering and eating

wildlife, particularly great apes and other primates, increases the

risk that people may contract and spread deadly diseases such as

39

Ebola. And bushmeat has also been implicated in the emergence of

HIV/AIDS.

BCTF recently hosted a meeting of African conservation experts

to identify priority solutions, and as a result, we are focusing our

collective attention on the following actions: building local capacity

to enforce existing wildlife laws; securing long-term funding to

maintain a system of well-managed parks and reserves; increasing

public awareness of the problem, both in Africa and the United

States; regulating hunting and transportation of bushmeat used for

commercial purposes; improving agricultural production and consumer access to bushmeat substitutes; building local capacity by

training wildlife managers, law enforcement officers, and forestry

personnel.

BCTF members are working actively on all these solutions, but

we recognize that the scale of the problem is so large that it cannot

be effectively addressed without increased government involvement. We, therefore, make the following specific recommendations

to the Subcommittee:

First, recognize that unsustainable hunting for bushmeat is the

most immediate threat to African wildlife today and that it threatens the livelihood of rural Africans, driving them further into poverty.

Second, identify a Congressional Bushmeat Caucus to collaborate

with NGO’s and African governments on actions to address the

bushmeat crisis.

Third, expand U.S. efforts to improve natural resource management in Africa and, more specifically, help to develop an effective

system of protected areas.

And, last, expand U.S. support for sustainable economic development in Africa, including agricultural development.

The bushmeat crisis is a wake-up call to longstanding problems

across the continent. We hope that this hearing will put into motion a collaborative global effort to address the significant threat to

human welfare and biological diversity. Time is of the essence,

however, as our options for intervention will become more limited

with every passing year.

Thank you for your interest and attention.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hutchins follows:]

Statement of Dr. Michael Hutchins, Director/William Conway Chair,

Department of Conservation and Science, American Zoo and Aquarium

Association, and Co–Chair, Bushmeat Crisis Task Force

Thank you Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee for providing us an

opportunity to testify this morning on a looming biodiversity conservation and

human welfare crisis in Africa the illegal, commercial exploitation of wild animals

for food, commonly referred to as the bushmeat crisis.

My name is Dr. Michael Hutchins, Director/William Conway Chair, Department

of Conservation and Science at the American Zoo and Aquarium Association or AZA.

I also serve as Co–Chair of the Bushmeat Crisis Task Force Steering Committee.

Established in 1999, BCTF represents over 30 US-based institutions and hundreds of professionals from around the globe, all of whom are committed to working

with our partners in Africa, Europe and the U.S. to address the bushmeat crisis.

On behalf of BCTF we would like to commend the Subcommittee and specifically

Chairman Gilchrest for the leadership you have shown in identifying the bushmeat

crisis as a priority for consideration by the 107th United States Congress.

Increasing demand and the commercialization of bushmeat hunting has eradicated almost all large mammals from unprotected areas in West Africa and threatens to do the same over the next 20 years in Central Africa. East and Southern

40

Africa are also currently experiencing dramatic increases in illegal, commercial

hunting and the data are just beginning to emerge regarding its impacts.

The causes of the current African bushmeat crisis are many including: widespread

poverty; increasing consumer demand for meat; development of roads by extractive

industries, such as logging, mining and petroleum which have opened up areas that

were previously inaccessible; increasing human populations; lack of economic or protein alternatives; social and political instability; lack of capacity to enforce existing

laws; and modernization of hunting technologies (guns and wire snares). Due to the

complexities associated with the bushmeat trade, any solutions will require a global

partnership for long-term success to be achieved.

The problem is really one of scale. To provide a sense of the enormous impact of

the bushmeat trade, Central Africans eat approximately the same amount of meat

as many Europeans and North Americans, yet over 60% of this comes from indigenous wildlife. In fact, over 1 million metric tons of antelope, primates, elephants and

rodents the equivalent of 4 million cattle are killed each year to supply Central

African families with what is either their primary source of protein, or a desired

luxury. Consumption of bushmeat by large, growing, urban populations, that often

view eating bushmeat as a way to reconnect with their cultural traditions is one

of many factors fueling the commercial wildlife trade.

Although there is a significant bushmeat trade in Asia and Latin America, BCTF

has focused its attention on Africa where the problem is most acute. We are particularly concerned about the Central African rainforests as their productivity is dramatically lower than the savanna ecosystems of East Africa and, as a result, the

impacts of even limited commercial hunting are more severe. Except in isolated regions, commercial hunting of large, slow-growing wildlife species such as elephants,

gorillas, and chimpanzees already exceeds their replacement rates. Forests are rapidly being emptied of animal life.

Why are we concerned about the bushmeat crisis?

Economics: The bushmeat crisis is not simply a wildlife crisis. Rather, it is a

symptom of much deeper socio-economic problems that must be addressed immediately for global security, health, socio-cultural, economic and environmental reasons. Economics is one of the primary driving forces of the bushmeat trade. Much

of the African continent lives in a dire state of poverty. The commercial bushmeat

trade has emerged as a response to meet the basic needs for food and income resulting from such poverty.

Logging, mining, petroleum and other large-scale extractive industries have facilitated the bushmeat crisis by providing a means to transport meat from the forest

to large cities via newly constructed roads. In addition, many companies do not provide food for their employees who often become dependent on bushmeat for their

protein needs. For example, BCTF member, the Wildlife Conservation Society, is

working with a logging company and the Government of the Republic of Congo to

prevent illegal bushmeat hunting inside the logging concession.

The primary source of foreign currency in many African countries is wildlife tourism. Loss of charismatic species could result in less tourism.

Human Health: Consumption of bushmeat also has critical public health implications. Butchering and eating wildlife, particularly apes and other primates, increases the risk that people may contract deadly diseases such as Ebola, and has

been suggested as one of the potential vectors for the emergence of HIV/AIDS.

Furthermore, if people cannot meet their basic nutritional needs, they are likely

to become more susceptible to disease because of their depressed immune systems.

There are numerous communities throughout Africa that are truly dependent on

wildlife as a protein source. The commercial bushmeat trade removes this important

resource from the communities most dependent upon it.

Ecological/Conservation: Unsustainable hunting risks the irreversible extinction of

species unique to Africa and the irreversible loss of value they confer to communities and to the world. These species include bonobos, chimpanzees, gorillas and

forest dwelling elephants. Loss of key species could result in irreversible ecological

change that could affect the entire forest ecosystem. For example, loss of fruit eaters

will alter the seed dispersal patterns of up to 80% of the region’s tree species. This

could change forest composition and potentially alter rates of carbon sequestration.

Loss of grazers could have an equivalent impact on savannah ecosystem structure

and function.

Cultural: Certain human communities are at risk of extinction. One example is

the Pygmy populations of Central Africa that are losing their traditional hunting

and gathering lifestyle. The loss of wildlife from their forest home threatens the

very basis of their culture.

41

What is the BCTF doing to address this crisis?

Collaboration among diverse groups is the primary way to mobilize expertise and

resources towards solving the bushmeat crisis. The Bushmeat Crisis Task Force was

formed as a result of a growing awareness among conservation professionals working in Africa regarding the dramatic impacts of the illegal, commercial bushmeat

trade. BCTF’s objectives are to: a) work with the general members of the BCTF to

focus attention on the bushmeat crisis in Africa; b) establish an information database and mechanisms for information sharing regarding the bushmeat issue; c) facilitate engagement of African partners and stakeholders in addressing the

bushmeat issue; and d) promoting collaborative decision-making, fund-raising and

actions among the members and associates of the BCTF.

BCTF recently hosted a meeting of the world’s leading experts on the bushmeat

issue to identify the priority solutions for the immediate and longer term. They are:

policy development, sustainable financing of conservation activities, development of

effective protected areas, increasing public awareness, facilitating public-private

partnerships, development of economic and protein alternatives, organization of

market seller and hunter associations and professional training. BCTF is actively

working with its members to assure action is taking place in all these areas.

Policy Development: Appropriate policy development for the long-term, including

legislating and enforcing environmental standards is likely to be the most effective

way of ensuring that business practices do not have unnecessary detrimental environmental impacts. BCTF has made dramatic progress in policy development in its

first two and a half years of operation. First, we have supported the formation and

implementation of the CITES Bushmeat Working Group that consists of the heads

of the Central African nations’ wildlife departments. Second, we prepared the draft

IUCN Resolution on Bushmeat that was adopted with modifications. Third, we have

supported recent efforts at the Convention on Biological Diversity to enable the formation of a Bushmeat Liaison Group.

Sustainable Financing of Conservation Activities: Securing long-term funding to

maintain a network of well-managed parks and resources is essential if we are to

protect plants and animals representative of the region’s unique biological heritage

for future generations. BCTF has been involved in discussions with other organizations exploring mechanisms to fund a sustainable system of protected areas in

Africa. BCTF has also assisted its members in seeking grants to implement on-theground actions to address the bushmeat issue and also encouraged partnerships between and collective action by members.

Development of Effective Protected Areas: Protected areas are critical because

they are the only locations on the planet where biodiversity conservation is valued

more than economics, and wildlife can be safe from the hunter’s gun and the trapper’s snare. As an organization BCTF has emphasized the need for long-term support of African protected areas. Many BCTF members such as World Wildlife Fund,

Conservation International and the Wildlife Conservation Society have been extremely active in assisting African nations in the development of national parks and

equivalent reserves.

Increasing Public Awareness: Awareness campaigns across Africa are essential in

the short term. Several efforts have begun to emerge which link cultural heritage

with the information regarding the dramatic losses of wildlife. These efforts are reporting dramatic and immediate impacts with bushmeat sellers choosing to switch

to alternative forms of meat. In the US, we are developing educational outreach materials to be used by BCTF supporting members and partners in educating the

American public. We are also developing a longer-term effort to support public

awareness campaigns across Africa with our many partners on the ground.

We have established a Web site (www.bushmeat.org) and a global information

network of experts, compiled detailed databases of bushmeat publications and

projects, and provided connections among bushmeat working groups around the

globe. We work closely with international NGOs, African governments and our colleagues in numerous U.S. government agencies. We provide resources and contacts

to international media for bushmeat related stories including major media sources.

Facilitating Public-private Partnership: Public-private partnerships enable improved regulation of the logging industry. Partnerships have the potential to generate significant conservation payoffs at relatively low cost. Innovative pilot projects

are beginning to realize significant conservation payoffs from the greening of private

sector business practices. BCTF and its members, particularly the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS), have stressed the importance of working closely with extractive industries to develop effective wildlife management strategies in concessions. In addition, WCS has encouraged logging companies to enforce existing wildlife laws in areas under their control.

42

Development of Economic and Protein Alternatives: Revitalizing agricultural production through strategic transportation planning and domestic agricultural research and extension will increase food production and consumer access to substitutes for bushmeat. Alternatives would also provide income-generating options to

farmers turned hunters. BCTF has collected information on current efforts to provide economic and protein alternatives.

Organization of Market Seller and Hunter Associations: Development of market

seller and hunter associations could be a component of a highly effective bushmeat

trade control system. Bushmeat sellers, mostly women, represent potential partners

in controlling the amount and types of animals (non-endangered species) sold. BCTF

has collected information on the importance of such associations to the bushmeat

trade but has made little progress to date on this issue.

Professional Training: With Africa’s three regional wildlife colleges and support

from USAID and the World Wildlife Fund US, we are currently organizing and conducting a series of workshops intended to develop bushmeat curriculum to be used

in training wildlife and protected area managers.

In summary, the BCTF model is showing promise as a new opportunity for addressing critical wildlife conservation issues. The very existence of BCTF has encouraged organizations and governments to view the bushmeat issue in a different

light. With the full support of the U.S. government and international partners, we

believe it is possible to effectively address the bushmeat crisis.

Recommendations

BCTF makes the following recommendations for U.S. government involvement in

seeking solutions to the bushmeat crisis:

1. Recognize that uncontrolled hunting and consumption of wildlife is the most

immediate threat to tropical forest biodiversity and that it increases the risk

of deadly viral disease outbreaks, and further compromises the livelihood of

poor rural families in Africa;

2. Identify a Congressional Bushmeat Caucus to collaborate with NGOs and affected governments on specific mechanisms to address the bushmeat crisis;

3. Encourage Congress to support efforts to improve African natural resource

management and develop a system of effective protected areas; and

4. Support Administration efforts to encourage alliances to promote sustainable

economic development in Africa through better governance, improved agricultural practices, enhanced public health, and open trade.

We applaud the efforts of Chairman Gilchrest and members of the Subcommittee

to raise the profile of this issue, and we are hopeful that this hearing will put in

motion a collaborative global effort to address this complex threat to biodiversity

conservation and human health.

Included for your reference are fact sheets BCTF has developed on various specific

issues related to the bushmeat crisis:

Bushmeat and International Collaboration

Species Affected by the Bushmeat Trade in Africa

Bushmeat and Economic Development

The Role of the Logging Industry

Coltan Mining in the Democratic Republic of Congo and Its Impact on Illegal

Bushmeat Hunting

Bushmeat and Global Human Health

Bushmeat and Ecology

Culture and Bushmeat

43

Bushmeat and International Collaboration

Species Involved: All Bushmeat Species Rodents to Elephants

Stakeholders Involved: Rural Communities, Heads of State, National and International Conservation Organizations, Zoological Parks, Animal Welfare Organizations, Human Welfare Organizations, Tropical Forest Conservation Agencies, Local

and National Governments, and International Treaty Organizations

Key Concepts:

• The bushmeat crisis is the most significant immediate threat to the future of

wildlife populations in Africa.

• Increased demand resulting from high population growth trends, modernized

hunting methods (guns and snares), and road development, all contribute to the

growth of the illegal commercial bushmeat trade.

• Tropical forests and other ecosystems are being emptied of their wildlife for this

unsustainable trade, which is leading to severe ecological damage and human

tragedy.

• Solutions to the bushmeat crisis require international collaboration on: policy

reform, sustainable financing, long-term support for protected areas, developing

protein and income alternatives, awareness and education campaigns.

44

Summary:

Approximately 30 million people live within the forested regions of Central Africa,

40–60% live in cities and towns, and most rely on the meat of wildlife as a primary

source of animal protein. Forest antelope (duikers), wild species of pig, and primates

are most often eaten, and as much as 1 million metric tons of wildlife is killed for

food in the region each year. In West African nations human population densities

are high (25–78 persons per square kilometer) compared to countries in the Congo

Basin (5–20 persons per square kilometer). West African wildlife populations have

been so depleted by years of unsustainable hunting for meat, that bushmeat is no

longer the most important source of protein in families’ diets. When bushmeat is

eaten in West Africa, rodents have replaced the over-hunted and now scarce antelopes and primates as the most commonly eaten wild animals. East and Southern

Africa are facing a serious decline of many wildlife populations outside of protected

areas the bushmeat trade is believed to be largely responsible for this decline with

increasing human populations and demand for meat driving the trade.

Background:

Wildlife has been hunted for food ever since humans first evolved, and wildlife

is still viewed as a resource ‘free’ for the taking in many areas. Today in Africa,

bushmeat continues to be an economically important food and trade item for thousands of poor rural and urban families. Animal parts are also important for their

role in ritual, and bushmeat has become a status symbol for urban elites trying to

retain links to ‘the village’—often commanding high prices in city restaurants. The

immediate loss of wildlife and the secondary loss of many plant species jeopardizes

the function and stability of natural habitats—including both forests and savannas

threatening the long-term survival of ecosystems and the people dependent upon

them.

Current Understanding and Activities:

Hunting of wildlife to meet human demand for protein may still be sustainable

in the few remaining areas where population densities are less than 2 people/km2,

trade routes are poorly established, and human population growth rates are low.

Markets, however, drive the scale of the commercial bushmeat trade now occurring

in West and Central Africa, with their large, rapidly growing populations of consumers. This commercial-scale trade threatens the survival of many species, including several unique to the dense forested regions of Africa. Though deforestation has

an obvious impact on wildlife dependent on these habitats, over-hunting for the

commercial bushmeat trade constitutes a comparable threat to the ecosystem itself.

It often results in the Empty Forest Syndrome: a forest filled with trees, but with

few if any large animals. Such forests will, over the long term, suffer dramatic

changes in structure and composition as the wildlife responsible for dispersing seeds

are lost through over hunting. The immediate loss of wildlife and the secondary loss

of many plant species jeopardize the function and stability of the forests’ complex

web of life, threatening the long-term survival of the forests themselves.

Solutions:

Possible solutions include: implementation of wildlife management efforts in logging and mining concessions; maintenance of a network of protected areas; regulation of hunting and trade; increasing consumer access to affordable and palatable

protein substitutes; development of alternative income-generating activities; enhancing national and local resource management capacity; and, widespread awarenessraising and education. These actions are all important components of comprehensive

action to resolve the unsustainable bushmeat trade. For these steps to be taken, it

is essential that conservation organizations, government agencies, donors, and interested individuals collaborate to share information and facilitate action. The

Bushmeat Crisis Task Force was formed with these goals in mind.

BCTF Summary:

Founded in 1999, the BCTF is a consortium of conservation organizations and scientists dedicated to the conservation of wildlife populations threatened by commercial hunting of wildlife for sale as meat. The BCTF operates under the direction of

an elected Steering Committee and is funded by Supporting and Contributing Members.

BCTF goals are to: a) work with the general members of the BCTF to focus attention on the bushmeat crisis in Africa; b) establish an information database and

mechanisms for information sharing regarding the bushmeat issue; c) facilitate engagement of African partners and stakeholders in addressing the bushmeat issue;

and d) promote collaborative decision-making, fund-raising and actions among the

members and associates of the BCTF.Species Affected by the Bushmeat Trade in

45

Africa: This is a summary of the major taxonomic groups affected by the bushmeat

trade in Africa. For a complete species list please visit the BCTF Website: [http:/

/www.bushmeat.org/html/SpeciesAffected.htm]

ANTELOPE: Duikers (Cephalophus spp.) are one of the primary targets for both

subsistence and commercial hunting activities in many regions of Africa. With a limited understanding of duiker life histories in natural habitats and the difficulties of

conducting monitoring activities, conservationists are challenged to determine the

ecological effects of commercial bushmeat hunting on both duiker populations and

the ecosystems in which they live. Current research indicates that duikers typically

supply 40–80% of the meat available in bushmeat markets across Central Africa.

In West Africa, years of commercial-level exploitation coupled with habitat loss have

resulted in considerably reduced duiker populations in many areas. Projections for

duiker populations in the long-term suggest dramatically decreasing trends for the

majority of species. Addressing the bushmeat trade should involve approaches that

include all species effected from rodents to elephants, and should pay particular attention to Africa’s duikers as a group of primary importance to both present and

future generations of Africans.

ELEPHANTS: African elephants are considered keystone species because of the

pivotal role that they play in structuring the plant and animal communities where

they reside. The continental decline of the African elephant and the contraction of

its range have historically been associated with the ivory trade as well as habitat

fragmentation due to human population expansion, and desertification. However,

elephants are increasingly targets of the illegal market in bushmeat. Currently the

majority of the elephants’ range in Africa is outside of protected areas, particularly

in Central Africa, where elephants are increasingly vulnerable to human encroachment and illegal hunting. Despite the growing consensus and recognition that elephants are being killed illegally not only for ivory, but also for their meat, there

is a lag in the research focus on this issue. Most likely this is because illegal poaching for ivory has overshadowed investigations of the poaching of elephants for

bushmeat. It is important to delineate this gap in the bushmeat research knowledge

base in order to identify and prioritize critical habitat, threatened elephant populations within these regions, and the still un-asked research questions before it is

too late. By defining the gap in the current knowledge conservation organizations

will be better able to direct future field research and conservation projects, and to

help potential funders of these projects to prioritize and allocate scarce research

monies.

PRIMATES: The effects of the bushmeat trade are particularly devastating to primate communities. Primates often become key targets when populations of antelope

and other higher-return species become depleted due to over hunting. Currently

there are more than 26 species of primates being harvested for the bushmeat trade

including all species of great apes. The impacts of the bushmeat trade on primates

is well-outlined in the 1998 Ape Alliance bushmeat report, which suggests: both

local and complete extinctions of endangered and threatened species, expansion of

live trade in apes [aka bushmeat orphans], destruction of subsistence-based human

communities [due to loss of their resource base], and increased risk of disease transmission resulting from contact with primates. This final point is beginning to

emerge as a significantly important research topic. New studies are identifying an

increasing number of potential linkages between emerging infectious diseases and

primates through the bushmeat trade, including HIV, Ebola, and others. The impacts of bushmeat hunting on both primate and human communities threatens the

future of all primate populations locally and the human population globally.

CARNIVORES: In contrast to their savanna counterparts, carnivores in rainforest

habitats are inconspicuous (many are solitary and nocturnal), yet they are numerically important members of forest mammal communities throughout Central and

West Africa. African forest carnivores are difficult to census using traditional transect methods and thus ecological information is rudimentary and the status of most

species in African forests remains largely unknown. Carnivores are not ‘traditional’

bushmeat species and are generally captured on an opportunistic basis. When they

can afford to be selective, African forest hunters generally prefer duikers and primates. In some locales, however, carnivores are targeted and the trade in carnivore

skins (such as leopard) can be significant. Cable snares are notoriously non-selective

and carnivores can be caught in such traps. They are better equipped than most

mammals to escape by chewing their way out; however, the ‘‘collateral mortality’’

due to injuries incurred is unknown. While all forest carnivores may not be directly

threatened by over-hunting, they are likely to be indirectly impacted due to competition with humans for the hunting of their most important prey species.

Impacts of the escalating bushmeat crisis on forest carnivore populations are not

known. The extent to which carnivores fall prey to humans is difficult to quantify

46

or monitor over the long-term because these animals are not highly marketable and

are usually consumed rather than sold. Evaluating the selectivity of hunters is impossible without information on the availability (i.e. relative densities) of target species, however, a given number of individuals extracted from an area may have more

impact ecologically than other mammal groups because of their naturally low densities, low intrinsic rates of increase, and position on the food chain. Presumably,

hunting poses the most serious threat to forest carnivore populations where they are

already exposed to the adverse effects of forest fragmentation, such as in the Upper

Guinea rainforests, considered a core area for the conservation of small carnivores.

The IUCN Small Carnivore Specialist Group listed habitat destruction and hunting

as the main threats facing small carnivores.

RODENTS: Due to the difficulty of raising domestic hoof stock in Africa, various

sources of wild animal protein, including rodents, have traditionally been used. As

rodents are relatively abundant, easy to capture, and are preferred by consumers,

they have been proposed by some as a potential alternate source of protein and income through game ranching and micro-livestock domestication. However, other

viewpoints hold that rodent farming is an inefficient way to generate protein.

Human consumption of rodents does have associated health risks however. In parts

of tropical Africa, Lassa fever, an acute viral illness, has become a serious problem

in recent decades. The reservoir of the Lassa virus is the multi-mammate rat of the

genus Mastomys. Only a few of the 349 African rodent species appear with regularity in the commercial bushmeat trade with the most commonly hunted rodent

species including grasscutters or cane rats (Thryonomys swinderianus and T.

gregorianus), giant pouched rats (Cricetomys gambianus and C. emini) and porcupines (Atherurus africaphus ssp). But while the range of rodent species directly affected by the bushmeat trade is not great, the numbers of animals consumed can

be considerable. The species that have been documented by bushmeat market studies tend to be among the most abundant, as they are easier to locate and capture,

and because ungulates, such as duikers, are still plentiful enough to make up the

bulk of the bushmeat trade affording hunters more meat for their efforts than most

rodents. However in some cases rodent species have been locally exterminated as

in the case of the giant pouched rat in eastern Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC),

where the human population is dense, the land fully cultivated, and other wildlife

species overhunted. Similarly, some populations of grasscutter rats are well below

carrying capacity, or have become extinct due to local overexploitation (NRC 1991).

Most African governments have laws requiring that hunters have a license to take

unprotected rodents. These types of measures could help to protect rodent species

from overhunting, but are infrequently enforced (IUCN 1996).

Bushmeat and Economic Development

Bushmeat Focal Issue: Eco–Economics

Species Involved: Rodents to Elephants

Stakeholders Involved: Rural Communities, Urban Communities, Hunters,

Traders, Market Sellers, Logging Companies, Development Agencies and Donors

Key Concepts

1. Lack of economic options and the value of bushmeat relative to its production

and transportation costs make participation in the commercial bushmeat trade attractive to poor rural and urban people. Moreover, profits from the bushmeat trade

attract non-local, commercial hunters who are less likely to practice restraint when

hunting.

2. In Africa, as in much of the rest of the world, growing urban populations and

rising household incomes drive the increasing demand for meat. With wildlife ‘‘free

for the taking,’’ and inadequate production and marketing of alternative protein

sources, bushmeat will continue to fill this growing consumer demand for meat.

3. Most people eat bushmeat because it is the cheapest and most readily available

source of meat. Some are willing to use scarce financial resources to eat a bushmeat

meal. In other parts of the world people shift away from eating bushmeat as soon

as other sources of protein become both reliably available and cheaper.

Summary

Economics drives the bushmeat crisis, although cultural attachment may also

play a role. Growing demand for meat in most cities provides new economic opportunities for people whose traditional sources of income have withered as agricultural

prices have fallen and jobs have become increasingly scarce. Although wealthier people will pay high prices for gorilla, snake, and porcupine in the capital cities, most

bushmeat is eaten by families who cannot afford the more costly beef, chicken and

pork. Economics can also be a key component to developing solutions to the

bushmeat crisis. Cooperative efforts could help to increase law enforcement and to

47

tax commercial trade in wildlife will contribute to solving the bushmeat crisis. Such

activities would reduce the supply and increase the price of bushmeat. This would

encourage consumers to seek alternatives, and thus help protect wildlife populations. Local production of economically affordable alternatives is vital, but may

need to be subsidized initially to encourage production and keep alternative protein

prices significantly lower than bushmeat. Reducing supply and shifting demand to

locally produced alternatives are the keys to curbing the commercial trade in

bushmeat without jeopardizing the health and welfare of Central Africans.

Background

Evidence from other parts of the world suggests that poor families initially consume more bushmeat as their incomes rise. Consumption only begins to drop when

families become wealthy enough to switch to eating more expensive cultivated

sources of protein. Bushmeat consumption, therefore, appears to follow an inverted

U pattern with income. If this pattern is also true for Central and West Africa, then

changes in livelihoods of rural and urban families may increase or decrease consumption of bushmeat, depending on where they are on the income axis.

Though people have eaten bushmeat on a subsistence basis for millennia, only recently has it become such an important source of income for so many people. In

rural areas, people once made money growing and selling a variety of products, including: rice, cotton, cacao, coffee and peanuts. Over the past 20 years livelihoods

have collapsed as infrastructures have decayed, prices fluctuated and the currency

devalued. With farming unprofitable and limited off-farm jobs available, many rural

people have turned to commercial hunting and trading of bushmeat. This is an attractive alternative because high returns can be made from a relatively small investment, there are only limited controls on hunting and trading of bushmeat, and

logging companies provide hunters with access to once isolated regions of the forest,

and traders with the means to transport bushmeat to markets. Urban populations

fuel the demand for bushmeat. These communities have grown substantially since

the 1960s and their buying power has fluctuated with the unstable economy.

Bushmeat is meeting urban demand for meat because it is relatively cheap and

available, particularly since logging roads and vehicles have increased hunters’ access to once isolated forests and their wildlife populations.

Current Understanding and Activities

Central Africans typically eat as much meat as many Europeans and North Americans (30–70 kg/person/year). Most of this meat comes from wildlife. Approximately

30 million people live in the forests of Central Africa, and they eat an estimated

total of 1.1 million metric tons of wildlife each year the equivalent of almost 4 million cattle. The estimated annual value of this bushmeat trade in West and Central

Africa could exceed 1 billion U.S. dollars. A hunter can make $300–1000 per year

from commercial hunting. This is more than the average annual household income

for the region and is comparable to the salaries of those responsible for controlling

the bushmeat trade. Hunters regularly reinvest their profits on improved technologies, which makes killing wildlife easier, more profitable, and less sustainable.

The difference between subsistence and commercial hunting are becoming less clear

as marketing opportunities increase. Traders, transporters, market sellers, restaurateurs, and their families also benefit from the commercial trade in bushmeat

and we must recognize that all of their incomes would be affected if laws against

the trade were strictly enforced. As demand for bushmeat increases, more people

will be encouraged to become involved in the trade, increasing the pressure on wildlife populations, threatening the survival of rare species, and jeopardizing future access to ecological, nutritional and income benefits from wildlife. A few pilot projects

have begun in West and Central Africa to assess the extent and impacts of the

bushmeat trade, to place controls on the commercial bushmeat trade, and to develop

alternative sources of protein. Widespread collaborative efforts are necessary to develop and implement bushmeat control and wildlife management activities and to

share the lessons learned from such activities.

Recommended Solutions

Efforts to constrain the supply of bushmeat and enforce laws that prohibit the

commercial trade in bushmeat will, in the short-term, decrease the amount of

bushmeat available in markets. However, if demand for bushmeat is strong and

substitutes do not exist, bushmeat prices will likely increase, providing incentives

for people to enter the trade and find ways to circumvent controls. Consequently,

solutions to the bushmeat crisis must include ensuring that consumers have access

to alternative protein sources that are both palatable and priced competitively with

bushmeat. Unless consumers have economically viable alternatives they will conVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:10 May 06, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 80615.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
48

tinue, not surprisingly, to demand wildlife as an affordable and tasty source of

meat.

The Role of the Logging Industry

Species Involved: All Flora and Fauna—Entire Ecosystem

Stakeholders Involved: Local communities, international timber producers, timber

product traders and consumers, producer and consumer country governments, World

Bank, Multilateral Development Banks, International Monetary Fund, Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), African Timber Organization, International Tropical

Timber Organization (ITTO)

Key Concepts:

• After oil and minerals, logging typically provides the next most significant

source of national revenue for the densely forested countries of West and Central Africa, and will continue to do so for at least the next 25–50 years.

• Road construction associated with selective logging dramatically increases

hunter access to isolated sectors of the forest, and decreases the cost of transporting bushmeat to urban markets, effectively increasing the supply to, and

profitability of the bushmeat trade.

• Per capita bushmeat consumption is highest in logging concessions, because the

large numbers of company workers can afford to eat more meat than poorer unemployed families, they have the money to purchase guns and ammunition, and

they have motorized access to the forest to hunt.

• Logging companies are the de facto managers of most of the remaining relatively intact blocks of forest outside of protected areas and have a key role to

play in ensuring that logging practices do not jeopardize the survival of wildlife

populations within concessions.

• Public advocacy has encouraged several logging companies to partner with conservation organizations. Such companies are developing and testing approaches

to curb the export of bushmeat from concessions and to decrease bushmeat consumption by loggers and their families.

Summary

Logging is an economically important land-use throughout West and Central

Africa, and a major threat to wildlife. Present selective logging practices not only

result in increased consumption of bushmeat within concession areas, but also facilitate the supply of bushmeat to urban markets and enhance the profitability of the

trade. With assistance from governments and conservation NGOs, logging companies are beginning to alter their practices so that they no longer directly or indirectly promote the unsustainable consumption of bushmeat, thereby minimizing the

impact of logging on forest wildlife. Widespread adoption and enforcement of appropriate forest and wildlife management policies and practices is essential to effective

control of the commercial bushmeat trade.

Background

The tropical forests of West and Central Africa cover an area of over 2 million

km2 almost four times the size of France. Although as many as 80 species of trees

are logged commercially in these regions, less than 5 account for the majority of

wood exports. In Cameroon, Sapelli (Entandrophragma cylindricum) and Ayous

(Triplochiton scleroxylon) comprise over 1/3rd of all log exports. In Gabon, Okoume ́

(Aucoumea klaineana) accounts for over 70% of exports. Logging progresses like a

wave over the landscape as timber companies enter into unlogged areas in search

of the few valuable trees that are scattered in low density throughout the forest.

Once these are logged the company quickly moves on to the next area. To find and

harvest these individual trees, loggers must construct numerous survey trails and

roads. This road-building both heavily fragments the forest, and opens it up to hunters. A hunting trip that might have taken days to complete before the arrival of logging may be reduced to a few hours when the hunter can hitch a ride on a logging

vehicle. Moreover, with the help of the logging company transport, hunters no

longer have to carry the dead animal(s) for long distances and therefore tend to kill

many more animals on each trip. Logging companies not only directly increase demand for meat by hiring a large workforce, they also greatly facilitate their workers

entry into the commercial trade to supply bushmeat to urban markets. This same

scenario existed in West Africa in the 1950s and 1960s, and contributed to the widespread and dramatic declines in wildlife populations evidenced in West African forests today.

49

Current Understanding and Activities

Decades of research and subsidies have convincingly demonstrated that natural

forest management for timber is both economically and ecologically untenable. Yet,

it may be possible to manage timber harvesting to generate a relatively constant,

and economically viable stream of marketable wood, accepting that tree species composition will change within the logged forest, but ensuring that logging practices do

not result in significant impacts on wildlife populations. The majority of large, relatively intact blocks of forest outside of protected areas, that comprise less than 6%

of the landscape in Central Africa, are currently being logged or are earmarked for

logging. It is critical that logging companies modify their practices to minimize the

impact on wildlife, and that protected areas are provided with funding sufficient to

ensure the long-term persistence of forest plants and animals. The role of protected

areas in conserving forest biodiversity is particularly important in West Africa

where less than 8% of the post–Pleistocene forest remains, and protected areas constitute the last bastions for forest dependent species. Advocacy and media attention

at the international level recently has encouraged several multinational logging

companies to develop partnerships with conservation NGOs to design and implement pilot activities to curb the flow of bushmeat from concessions, and to provide

logging company workers and their families with alternatives to bushmeat. Governments and donors are also working with trade associations to develop a ‘code of good

conduct’ for all logging companies active in the region.

Recommended Solutions:

Logging companies provide revenues and employment essential to the economies

of West and Central Africa, and have a major role to play in determining the future

state of forests and wildlife management in the region. Providing logging companies

with incentives to minimize impacts on plant and animal communities within concessions, to establish long-term wildlife management plans, to set aside unlogged

refuges for rare or threatened species, to halt the transportation of hunters and

bushmeat on logging vehicles, to deny hunters road access to logged forests, and to

seek ways to provide company employees with alternative sources of protein, are all

important steps in mitigating the adverse impacts of logging on wildlife.

Coltan mining in the Democratic Republic of Congo and its impact on illegal

bushmeat hunting

• Tantalum is a rare, valuable, metallic element which is twice as dense as steel

and highly resistant to heat and corrosion. It can store and slowly release an

electrical charge, a property that has made it a vital material for capacitors in

portable electronic equipment including laptops, digital cameras, playstations

and mobile phones. Other applications include surgical equipment, turbine

blades for jet engines and lining chemical reactors.

• It is mined in several countries with Australia responsible for over 60% of world

production. All of the production of the largest mines is sold, in advance, on

fixed price contracts to key tantalum processors. There is no central market for

tantalum and, other than the major mine-processor contracts, prices are determined by dealers on an individual transaction basis.

• In 2000, increased anticipated demand for electronic products caused a tantalum supply shortfall, precipitating a rush of panic buying and a massive price

increase. In the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) this became a Klondikestyle rush into the World Heritage Site National Parks where ‘coltan’, a tantalum-bearing gravel ore, can be easily surface-mined with shovels and sieves.

The mines are in rebel-held areas of the war-torn, impoverished DRC where

warring factions are responsible for humanitarian atrocities and neighboring

countries are accused of perpetuating the war as a cover for systematic exploitation of minerals.

• The mining camps had a massive impact on local wildlife through commercial

hunting for food, including the wholesale killing of endangered species such as

the eastern lowland or Grauer’s gorilla. This species occurs only in DRC and

it is estimated that over 85% of the world’s population occurred in Kahuzi Biega

National Park prior to the arrival of 10,000 miners and 300 professional hunters. The population has likely been decimated.

• The United Nations Security Council published two reports in 2001 which clearly stated that the private sector must accept some responsibility for contributing to this resource-based conflict through the purchase of illegally mined material the spoils of war

• The panic-buying coltan boom was followed by a tantalum market slump in

2001. The plummeting prices were not, as widely reported, due to international

pressure to boycott Congolese coltan nor to the development of alternatives to

50

tantalum, but rather due to companies working off their expensive inventories

they simply didn’t need to buy it. Despite significant planned expansions of

Australian mining capacity, demand for tantalum is likely to continue to grow

at a steady rate that may again outstrip supply. Hence, sources such as DRC

will remain strategically important.

• There has been international call for companies to boycott Central African tantalum, which is the easiest and safest corporate option, particularly in terms

of public relations. There is no need to purchase Congolese coltan at present

due to large inventories still being used up after the panic-buying phase. However, due to smuggling and the nature of the world market, it is almost impossible to guarantee that shipments of ore purchased on the ‘spot’ market are free

of this ‘conflict coltan’. Sanctions may impact negatively on the poverty stricken

region, which is so desperately in need of investment and may in fact increase

dependence on bushmeat.

• Food security for the Congolese people has been profoundly compromised by the

long-standing conflict that has ravaged the country. Theft and destruction of

crops and livestock has combined with voluntary and forced desertion of agriculture for more lucrative mining operations, and thereby to create growing dependence on food aid and imports. Under such conditions of stress, dependence

on bushmeat has increased with sustainable wild harvest off-take hugely exceeded by the desperate population.

• A regulated, Congolese, coltan industry based on long-term, transparently negotiated business arrangements with legitimate Congolese coltan producers, under

the terms of the DRC peace process, should be explored. Payment of a fair market price for an ethically sourced product could contribute significantly to the

peace process in the region, as business intervention may be a viable route to

stability in a conflict that is predicated on economics. This option is far more

complex, not least as it raises significant questions about the acceptability and

risk of doing business in a war zone. Paradoxically, however, this route could

demonstrate greater environmental and social responsibility.

• Fauna & Flora International (FFI) is global conservation organization that

builds the capacity of partner organizations to find sustainable and innovative

solutions to conservation issues in some of the most politically complex and

most important reservoirs of biodiversity in the world. FFI is working with tantalum consuming industries to identify their role and responsibilities with regard to management of the coltan supply chain, and to find economically, politically, socially and environmentally viable solutions to the crisis.

• FFI is working with corporations and industry bodies, governments, conservation organizations, humanitarian NGOs and aid agencies, inter-governmental

bodies and financial institutions to identify possible routes in which coltan can

generate long term benefits to DRC rather than fueling a war which has resulted in over 3m ‘excess deaths’ in 3 years.

Karen T. Hayes, B.A. Mod. Zoo, M.B.A. Cantab.

Corporate Affairs, Fauna & Flora International

Great Eastern House, Tenison Road, Cambridge, CB1 2TT, UK

tel: +44 (0)1223 571000 mobile: +44 (0)7968 179951 fax: +44 (0)1223 461481

www.fauna-flora.org

4 July 2002

Bushmeat and Global Human Health

Species Involved: Non-human Primates, Humans, Potential other vector/reservoir

species.

Stakeholders Involved: Rural and urban communities in Africa, World Population,

Centers for Disease Control, National Institutes of Health (USA), University and

Government Health Researchers around the Globe, Private Companies engaging in

extractive and/or construction-transport activity in tropical forest areas,

Key Concepts:

• Wildlife, particularly primates, harbor diseases that can jump to humans and

cause new and typically lethal diseases such as AIDS and Ebola

• Hunting, butchering, and consumption of bushmeat places people at increased

risk of contracting virulent animal borne diseases

• Logging, Mining, and Hydroelectric or Fossil Fuel Transport projects have

opened up new areas of forest to commercial hunting, increasing the risk that

humans will be exposed to new animal borne diseases

• Bushmeat is an important source of dietary protein for most Central Africans,

and they are unlikely to stop eating bushmeat unless they fully understand the

51

risks to their health, and to the continued presence of these animal populations,

and possibly unless other cheaper substitutes are available • Increasing our understanding of the factors likely to promote transmission of

diseases from wildlife to humans is critical to evaluating the public health risks

associated with the commercial trade in bushmeat • Capacity building at local, national, and international levels for disease monitoring, surveillance, and care provision among forest populations not only provides better information in the medium to long term, but also valorizes local

knowledge, provides educational opportunities, and offers economic alternatives

to commercial hunting for forest populations in the immediate term.

Summary:

Though bushmeat is often cited as essential to meeting the basic nutritional needs

of rural African communities, studies are beginning to indicate considerable negative health implications connected with the processing and consumption of wildlife.

Reports are beginning to emerge connecting non-human primates with Ebola virus

in a variety of African outbreak sites. Deaths have also resulted from outbreaks of

diarrhea linked with the consumption of bushmeat. Evidence of simian immunodeficiency virus (SIV) infection has been reported for 26 different species of African

non-human primates, many of which are regularly hunted and sold as bushmeat.

Two of these viruses, SIVcpz from chimpanzees and SIVsm from sooty mangabeys,

are the original cause of AIDS in humans. Together, they have been transmitted

to humans on at least seven occasions. New research suggests that HIV recombinants are also appearing in forest sites where commercial hunting and in-migration of human populations has affected the distribution and circulation of viruses.

This has scientific as well as public health implications, locally and globally.

Background:

Emerging infectious diseases are a major threat to global human health. While

dramatic outbreaks of Ebola virus or Sin Nombre (hanta) virus have attracted widespread media attention, the disease with the greatest global impact to have emerged

recently is the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS). First recognized in

1981, AIDS represents the endstage of infection with one of two lentiviruses (human

immunodeficiency virus types 1 or 2) of zoonotic origin. HIV–1 has spread to most

parts of the world, while HIV–2 has remained largely restricted to West Africa. On

a global scale, HIV/AIDS represents the most important public health threat of the

new millennium. These recent research results emerge at a time when human populations are increasing while availability of resources to meet basic nutritional needs

are decreasing. Finding ways to reduce human health threats potentially caused by

the bushmeat trade while addressing protein needs for millions of people is a global

imperative. Bushmeat in Central Africa constitutes 80% of all meat consumed and

provides poor rural and urban families with as much as 50% of daily protein requirements. Forest antelope (duikers) are the most popular species to hunt because

they are relatively large and abundant, and are easily trapped at little cost using

wire snares. As antelope numbers decline, hunters shift to primates, which are easy

but more expensive to hunt, as each animal costs a shotgun shell. Eventually, as

all large animals are depleted, people resort to hunting and selling rodents. Given

the greater genetic proximity of apes and monkeys to humans, people are most at

risk of contracting animal borne diseases when bushmeat markets have a high ratio

of primates.

Current Understanding and Activities:

Commercial logging of tropical forests represents an important economic activity

for several African countries. Logging operations facilitate the intensification of commercial hunting by building roads into once relatively inaccessible areas of forest

with abundant wildlife, and by allowing hunters to travel on logging vehicles and

to transport their bushmeat to urban markets. This increased penetration of tropical

forest has the potential to increase human exposure to new infectious agents. In

west central Africa alone, numerous primate species known to harbor SIV, including

colobus, sun-tailed and DeBrazza monkeys as well as mandrills, drills, chimpanzees,

and red-capped mangabeys, are regularly hunted and sold at local bushmeat markets. Certain of the simian viruses have properties that render them at least candidates for natural transmission. Thus, although there is no evidence that zoonotic

transmissions have occurred as a direct result of this commercialized bushmeat

trade, the potential for human exposure has increased, as have the conditions that

might support the emergence of new zoonotic infections. A number of studies are

currently being undertaken to investigate the linkages between wildlife diseases and

human health. Such research is essential in addressing many important questions

concerning wildlife human interactions. Equally important are projects to explore alVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:10 May 06, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 80615.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
52

ternative models for economic development that do not entail large scale ecological

disturbance, and to develop and test approaches to meeting Central Africans’ basic

nutritional and protein needs, whilst shifting consumer preferences away from eating bushmeat.

The events that brought about the HIV–1 pandemic may never be fully elucidated, though their connection to emergence mechanisms for other pathogens, such

as Ebola or Hepatitis, merits serious attention. Recent research suggests that initial

emergence of SIV into human populations as HIV–1occurred during the first wave

of extractive activity in African forests, during the rubber boom of the 1920s and

1930s. Regardless of what ultimately caused its explosive spread, conditions that

promote and sustain zoonotic disease emergence have likely increased rather than

decreased in the past two decades. Studies underway seek to confirm and track continued transmission of SIVs to humans at present, and to determine the prevalence

of infection and associated risk factors. Researchers are also developing and testing

diagnostic assays capable of recognizing a wide range of lentiviral infections in both

humans and primates, including the development and application of non-invasive

approaches to screen primate populations in the wild for evidence of SIV infection.

Related work trains local forest residents to monitor and report on the health of gorillas and other non-human primates, and has been instrumental in documenting

and responding to recent Ebola outbreaks. Addressing the origins and future of HIV

and other pathogens entails attention to the convergence of issues such as environmental change, conservation of endangered primate species, economic development,

public health, environmental governance, and corporate environmental leadership.

Such work will increasingly require interdisciplinary collaboration of scientists with

expertise in anthropology, history, ecology, political science, economics, primatology,

epidemiology, virology and conservation biology. It will demand an emphasis on infrastructure development and training in the areas concerned, sensitivity to feelings

of stigma, and respect for distinct culturally based attitudes to some of these issues.

It will foster discussions concerning resource allocations based on scientific and public health priorities as well as the changing definitions and perpetual demands of

economic development.

Recommended Solutions:

An interdisciplinary working group of international researchers studying emergent viral disease in tropical forest sites all over the world met under the auspices

of the International Society for Ecosystem Health in June, 2002 in Washington D.C.;

they will meet again at Harvard University, under the auspices of the Harvard

Academy for International and Area Studies, and the Harvard AIDS Institute, in

November 2002 (for more information, write rhardin@wcfia.harvard.edu). During

the final roundtable session in June, with representatives from Department of

State, Department of Interior, Department of Agriculture, and other government

agencies as well as non-governmental organizations, the following recommendations

emerged:

Governments and donors:

1. Recognize that previous distinctions between domestic and international health

concerns are no longer necessarily accurate; Pathogens in a tropical forest today

could eventually reach Arizona or Michigan.

Example: HIV history, above.

Recommendation: Institute internal training modules for government agencies

and policy makers, demonstrating and discussing links between human health, ecosystem health, good governance, strong economic performance, stability, and U.S.

national interests/security concerns.

2. Consider a Relative Risk Framework: Place known risks (spread of existing

HIV strains, emergence of new HIV strains, and spread of Ebola) on a continuum

from high to low risk. Examples: Such an approach has worked well for Food Safety

in North America. Recommendations: In the processes that make up the bushmeat

trade (opening of forest areas, in-migration, meat demand, market development,

hunting intensification, ecological change, market response, etc.) determine via hazard analysis where are critical control points. Identify the risk reduction points and

develop a plan and standards for each point. Research can inform that process, creating better management programs and training programs.

3. Build better funding support for multidisciplinary research initiatives with explicit health and ecology focus.

Examples: recent NIH initiatives under Fogarty auspices, and others just taking

shape.

Recommendations: strong research protocols protecting animal and human health,

and encouraging teams to share and archive their samples; engage in old-fashioned,

53

omnivorous survey work with open minds to identify not only known but also as

yet unknown pathogens.

4. Foster participation in training opportunities at research and health career levels.

Examples: WCS training for local residents in Africa on Primate Health, supported by USFWS; training for international researchers at the Biology of Disease

Vectors Program, Colorado State University, supported by MacArthur Foundation.

Recommendation: Earmark funds for local capacity building in any conservation

or environmental protection initiative; create and/or strengthen scholarship and fellowship initiatives in these fields for international research training.

5. Senior Government leadership is needed in multilateral negotiations and recently advancing initiatives related to forests and trade where the U.S. has interest.

Examples: We are entering a new institutional era on forest management: CBD

has adopted a forest action program; G8 interest; Rio + 10 with clear forest-related

deliverables.

Recommendation: While no one institution or organization has total control over

such issues as cross sectoral collaboration for sustainable forest management, the

U.S. can and should be aggressive on public-private partnerships, as those emerging

in Congo basin countries.

6. Ensure the viability and perpetuity of protected areas in tropical forests.

Examples: slow building of a transborder initiative in the western Congo basin,

where core areas are surrounded by public/private and trinational government efforts at joint management of mixed-use zones. Recent research suggests that core

protected areas, more than buffer zones or management areas, are the best chance

for continued densities of forest fauna, with viable population numbers, while experiments in effective management play themselves out in adjoining areas. As wildlife repositories, such core areas have clear value for the education of international

publics as well as local residents.

Recommendation: Maintain or increase funding levels for establishment and management of protected areas. Earmark funds for capacity building programs in core

areas that value and reward local forest and health knowledge, while expanding

skills bases and providing new economic opportunities in research, tourism, and

health related fields for local residents.

Private sector:

1. Identify appropriate protein alternatives to bushmeat and mechanisms for making these resources available and affordable to rural and urban communities.

Example: recent trials with imported chicken and fish in Cameroonian logging

concessions.

Recommendation: exploring protein alternatives must be done with an eye open

for the introduction of new pathogens to wildlife communities via the domesticated

animals introduced. However, care in the distribution and marketing of alternatives

can reduce such risks, while also reducing consumption of wild animals.

2. Integrate research-based monitoring of disease processes into development

projects and for-profit activities in tropical forests.

Examples: PRESICA project in Cameroon, working with logging companies and

local populations to conduct blood tests of humans and wildlife in logged areas,

while increasing awareness and dialogue about SIV/HIV among stakeholders; Brazilian example of Power Company funding pre- and post- dam construction monitoring of arbovirus levels, and offering treatment to local populations where levels

have increased.

Recommendation: Partner with existing research projects, or create an internal

agency/service for research and monitoring, focusing on links between human health

and the bushmeat trade including mechanisms of disease transmission, monitoring

prevalence patterns, and documenting and supporting human nutritional needs.

Environmental NGOs:

1. Work to develop health indicators, for use across ecosystems.

Example: Biodiversity indicators exist at various degrees of specificity. How is

that addressed and how we can combine the health with the biodiversity? Also, robust (non-normative) indicators/criteria are being implemented since the September

11 scare, in various sites around the world.

Recommendation: Use current WCS wildlife health program as a model, or starting point. Also, return to original Hotspots Monitoring plan for Conservation International: biomedical issues were a part of the plan. Let us pick those aspects up;

work with medical and public health resources in hotspots, and try to systematize

our information gathering and training on these topics.

2. Develop awareness raising activities, at various levels.

54

Example: The Bushmeat Crisis Task Force has effectively generated interest in

U.S. based zoo-going publics, and in the North American media. Project PRESICA

is developing and testing brochures and other educational materials in Cameroon.

Conservation International is doing awareness raising work in Ghana.

Recommendation: weak spots on such work include reaching the outer edges of

the stakeholder spectrum: local residents of tropical forest areas, and corporate leaders at the international level. Bolster funding and collaboration across organizations

on effective awareness raising at these levels, learning from the successful experiences mentioned above.

Bushmeat and Ecology

Bushmeat Focal Issue: Ecological Processes and Bushmeat

Species Involved: Seed-dispersing animals, including duikers, monkeys, apes and

elephants

Stakeholders Involved: Rural Communities, Hunters, Traders, Protected Area

Managers, Logging Companies, Development Agencies and Donors, Future Generations

Key Concepts:

• Hunting Wildlife for meat is a greater immediate threat to biodiversity conservation than is deforestation. • People in the Congo Basin eat as much meat as do Europeans and Americans;

60%–80% of animal protein is derived from wildlife. As much as 1 million metric tons of bushmeat is eaten each year in the Congo Basin. • Primates and antelopes that are commonly hunted for meat, play an important

role in the forest by spreading the seeds of trees, vines and shrubs. • Forest wildlife productivity is very low compared to savanna populations and

cannot sustainably supply protein demands for growing human populations in

West and Central Africa. • Legitimizing and helping countries enforce existing wildlife laws is central to

effective wildlife conservation. • Securing long-term support for protected areas and buffer zones will be the only

solution for many species’ survival. • A significant percentage of the animals being hunted are classified as threatened or endangered and are protected by international laws (e.g. CITES).

Summary

Though deforestation and habitat loss is often cited as the primary cause of local

wildlife extinction, hunting for both local consumption and large commercial markets has become the most immediate factor that threatens the future of wildlife in

the Congo Basin in the next 5–15 years and has already resulted in widespread

local extinctions throughout the Upper Guinea Forest Ecosystem of West Africa.

Empty Forest Syndrome describes a forest that has been emptied of its wildlife

structurally, it appears normal, but no large-bodied animals are present. As wildlife

are being hunted out of forests, those ecosystems lose important seed dispersers,

thus affecting the ecology of the entire ecosystem.

The short-term economic benefits derived from the commercial bushmeat trade,

though expedient for poor families today, may jeopardize long-term economic opportunities for future generations. And worse may place people in increased jeopardy

of contracting and transmitting animal-derived diseases such as Ebola or HIV (See

BCTF Fact Sheet on Health).

Background

If only one species of animal existed in the forest, hunters would continue to hunt

that species until it became so scarce, from over hunting, that profits from hunting

declined below that which the hunter could make doing something else, such as

farming or fishing. Unfortunately for rare and endangered species, the forests of

West and Central Africa are home to numerous wildlife species that are hunted for

food. In this case, when hunters go hunting they are not targeting single species,

but are roaming the forest in search of any animal worth (in economic terms) killing. A bushmeat hunter with a shotgun is inclined to shoot the largest animal he

can be assured of killing because this will generate the most profit per cartridge.

So although an animal may become scarce, even to the point of almost going locally

extinct, a hunter will shoot it if he encounters it, and it is large enough to warrant

using up an expensive shotgun cartridge. Given this fact, rare and endangered species are likely to be driven to extinction by hunters when other more abundant animals continue to make hunting profitable.

Moreover, even when over hunting and bushmeat scarcity causes prices to rise

and substitutes to be more competitive, hunting will continue in areas where

55

bushmeat capture and transport costs remain comparable to the costs of livestock

rearing.

Bushmeat is often a primary source of protein for local communities, as other alternatives are frequently not viable. In Central Africa, domestic animals such as

cattle, goats, pigs, chickens and ducks are raised by rural and urban households,

but they are primarily viewed as savings and insurance rather than as sources of

protein. This traditional value of livestock remains important to households in the

region today because inflation is high and access to banks and formal credit is limited or absent. Furthermore, tsetse flies and trypanosomiasis severely limit cattle

raising in the forested and scrubby savannah landscapes typical of the region. As

a result, the meat of domestic livestock tends only to appear in rural or urban markets that are located relatively close to savannahs and ethnic groups with a tradition of pastoralism.

Current Understanding and Activities

Hunting of wildlife to meet people’s demand for protein may still be sustainable

in the few remaining areas where population densities are less than 2 people/km2,

trade routes are poorly established, and human population growth rates are low or

negative. The scale of the commercial bushmeat trade now occurring in West and

Central Africa, however, is driven by markets with high human densities and

growth rates. This industrial-level market threatens the survival of many species,

including several unique to the dense forested regions of Africa. While deforestation

is an obvious menace to wildlife dependent on these habitats, hunting constitutes

an even greater threat to the ecosystem. Even where tree cover is relatively intact,

we find forests without wildlife this is known as Empty Forest Syndrome. Such forests suffer dramatic effects in structure and composition as the wildlife necessary

to disperse seeds and enable regeneration are gone. This may result in loss of many

plant species as well as considerable effects on water flow, including streams and

major rivers.

Loss of wildlife from hunting, means loss of seed dispersing animals that play a

key role in determining tree composition and distribution, altering both the structure and function of the forest and potentially causing irreversible ecological effects

(e.g., carbon sequestration) with global consequences.

Wildlife populations, though highly diverse in these forests, are not as productive

when compared with savanna-based wildlife populations. In general, there is an

order of magnitude difference between the biomass available for hunting within the

same amount of space when we compare forests (2,500 kg per square kilometer) and

savannas (25,000 kilograms per square kilometer) (Robinson and Bennett 2000).

Thus, animal husbandry programs such as the game ranching efforts (commercial

management of wildlife for meat and skins) found in East and Southern Africa are

not a viable alternative in West and Central Africa.

Recommended Solutions

• Long-term support for protected areas including provision of well-equipped and

trained anti-poaching units is a clear priority for mitigating the commercial

bushmeat trade. This is particularly true for West Africa where much of the

original forest cover has been removed and protected areas provide some of the

only land available for many wildlife populations.

• Target extractive industries to manage wildlife resources in partnership with

governments and conservation NGOs.

• Increase support for national and transborder protected area networks and for

developing wildlife management capacity at local, national, and regional levels.

• Provide support for stabilization of conflicts throughout the region an important

link with dramatic losses of wildlife that removes potential economic development and ecological importance from future generations of Africans.

• Support environmentally sound economic development throughout West Africa

and the Congo Basin. Influence broader environmental strategy implementation

(e.g. through National Bushmeat Action Plans) and increase capacity for international cooperative efforts.

• Development of multi-level research and education programs including: fundamental and applied research to increase understanding of tropical forest ecosystems; to improve methods for harnessing sustainable, renewable natural resources; to develop alternative sources of income and protein; to adapt school

and university curricula to include an improved understanding of biodiversity;

to introduce new technology such as interpretation of satellite imagery, communications and tools such as GIS and molecular biology.

• Support public awareness campaigns designed to reach out to range states to

raise awareness of the bushmeat crisis and their role in implementing solutions.

56

Culture and Bushmeat

Bushmeat Focus Issue: Social Ecology

Species Involved: All bushmeat species: rodents, giant pangolins, brush-tailed porcupine, duikers (forest antelope), monkeys, chimpanzees, gorillas, elephants, and humans Stakeholders Involved: Rural and urban communities, indigenous groups, conservation and development organizations

Key Concepts:

• Bushmeat is an important source of protein for poor rural and urban families

in West and Central Africa. • Many communities will continue to hunt even where alternatives exist as

bushmeat and hunting are culturally and socially important. • When people do not have stable land tenure or livelihood security, they are less

likely to care for the resources in the areas where they reside. • Population growth has a major effect on the demand for bushmeat. Even if per

capita consumption remains stable, increasing population can have a devastating effect on wildlife and natural resources. More land must be cleared for

housing and agriculture, and more forest resources must be extracted to meet

basic needs.

Summary

Local communities are inextricably tied to the current bushmeat crisis in West

and Central Africa. They form the network of hunters, traders, truck drivers, market-resellers, restaurateurs and consumers that moves wildlife from the forest to the

urban cooking pot. All participants in their trade network rely on bushmeat for

some of their livelihoods. Wildlife provides protein, cultural and religious linkages,

and a source of income many rural families. People do not typically view bushmeat

hunting as a problem. Rather, wildlife is viewed more as crop pests, threats to their

lives and livelihoods, an inexhaustible resource free for the taking, and a new source

of income. However, growing human population and changing economic conditions

are driving demand for bushmeat that now exceeds the rate that hunted wildlife are

replaced within the forest. Unsustainable hunting for meat will mean the loss of a

valuable source of food and income for the huge number of families involved in

bushmeat trade networks. Finding ways to conserve threatened and endangered

wildlife species, without compromising the health and welfare of poor rural and

urban families is a challenge. Shifting demand to locally produced alternatives to

bushmeat and revitalizing the traditional agricultural economies of recent entrants

into the bushmeat trade, are the keys to curbing the commercial trade in bushmeat

without jeopardizing the health and security of West and Central Africans.

Background

Wildlife species have held great importance for forest-dwelling peoples for millennia. Duikers (forest antelopes), monkeys, rodents and bushpigs all serve human

communities as sources of protein, cultural and social artifacts and now, as sources

of cash when sold to bushmeat markets. Hunting is vital to communities without

access to agricultural markets, or to those who are too poor to purchase other

sources of meat. Hunting is inextricably woven into many societies. Animal parts,

such as horns, feathers or bones are a crucial part of many cultural and religious

ceremonies. In areas where people live at low densities and can rotate their usage

of forest resources, wildlife populations do not seem to suffer much damage. However, increasing population densities and unstable land tenure risks depleting the

wildlife upon which many communities depend for their way-of-life and cultural

identity. Halting unsustainable hunting and helping to retain the cultural value of

wildlife is a challenge when many people involved in the commercial trade in

bushmeat view wildlife as abundant, inexhaustible, and free to be used.

Current Understanding and Activities

Livelihood insecurity, and absence of land tenure facilitate the unsustainable commercial trade of bushmeat. Poor people with few job opportunities see hunting or

trading or re-selling bushmeat as a source of income to meet today’s critical needs,

and, not surprisingly, are less concerned that their actions risk forfeiting their livelihood in the future. Similarly, families without the legal or practical ability to restrict who hunts how much in their forest, are encouraged to hunt all the wildlife

they can as quickly as possible, before others do.

Conservation and development organizations (both governmental and nongovernmental) must tread carefully when working with local people on the bushmeat issue.

All of us resent ‘‘outsiders’’ imposing restrictions on our behavior that seem artificial

and unconnected to our personal situations, needs and realities. Building relationVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:10 May 06, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 80615.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
57

ships and capacity among all key stakeholder groups enables the development of appropriate solutions that can link resource use regulations and activities that offer

alternative sources of protein and economic opportunities.

Recommended Solutions

Working with all participants in the commercial bushmeat trade to increase livelihood and resource access security will increase the success of any projects that seek

to decrease the quantity of wildlife hunted for food. Targeting development activities

to draw population pressure away from fragile areas, and promoting the use of family planning can help secure access to forest resources over the long term. People

must have access to alternative, economically competitive, and palatable protein

sources, for bushmeat consumption to decrease.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, sir.

Dr. Richard Carroll?

STATEMENT OF RICHARD W. CARROLL, DIRECTOR, WEST AND

CENTRAL AFRICA AND MADAGASCAR PROGRAMS, WORLD

WILDLIFE FUND

Mr. CARROLL. Yes, Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity

to testify today on the devastating impact of the bushmeat trade

in Africa and to offer some solutions.

I am Dr. Richard Carroll, Director of the West and Central Africa

and Madagascar Program at the World Wildlife Fund. WWF and

its 5 million members worldwide is the largest private conservation

organization working internationally to protect wildlife and wildlife

habitats, and we currently sponsor conservation programs in more

than 100 countries.

Many of the issues have been raised by my colleagues, and I will

focus my comments on protected areas and logging concession controls and the political process of the Yaounde summit as three viable, concrete, and interrelated solutions to the bushmeat trade in

Central Africa.

Protected areas are the only land-use form fully dedicated to biodiversity conservation where wildlife should be safe from gun and

snare. In the corridors between these protected areas and in other

forests where logging concessions operate, illegal and uncontrolled

logging and hunting must be stopped, and transportation routes—

roads, railways, and airplanes for the international transport—

must be controlled.

As a muddy-boot gorilla researcher who reached silverback or

gray-beard status in the forests of Central Africa, let me take you

to the ground level for a little run through the jungle, if I may, to

show you how one protected area, Dzanga-Sangha in the Central

African Republic, got started and its impact on conservation.

In 1976, as a Peace Corps volunteer, I was asked by the Minister

of the Environment in the Central African Republic to check out

the wildlife conservation potential in the forests of the southwest

CAR. I arrived at the remote town of Bayanga, and the next day

I was in the forest with my new-found BaAka Pygmy friends,

Mekma and Mevanda. It was clear from the tracks, nests, signs,

and sightings that this was indeed a rich forest and wildlife punctuated by beautiful forest glades called ‘‘byes’’ in the BaAka language, where wildlife congregates. However, hunting camps were

on every stream, and snare trails crisscrossed the animal trails.

58

We walked over 2,000 kilometers of transsects and confirmed the

importance of the forest and the degree of threat to this forest.

Mike Fay joined me and completed the surveys in the southern tip

of the country. The network of logging roads allowed access to migrant workers from the logging company even to the deepest

reaches of the forest, formerly the realm only of the BaAka Pygmies. Company workers check their snares, and the meat returns

on the logging vehicles in the evening. The forests is being emptied

by outsiders with no long commitment to the region, leaving little

for the people that need it most.

For forest people like the BaAka Pygmies whose cultural, physical, and spiritual life depends on an intact forest, forest and wildlife depletion means cultural extinction for these forest people.

Where the forest is going and the wildlife is gone, the Jengi, or the

forest spirit, is no longer there.

The BaAka said to me that they wanted an intact forest and

wildlife and the continued use of these resources, but also the skills

to adapt to a changing way of life in this forest. That required literacy, numeracy, and health care. So we set out to try to establish

a protected area system that will preserve the forest and the wildlife with a management program that will allow for the continued

traditional uses of these resources and provide health care and

education that is so necessary.

We named it Dzanga-Sangha and the program was funded by the

WWF/USAID Wildlands and Human Needs Program, and continued support has come from CARPE over many years. Additional

support came from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Elephant

Conservation Act that supported anti-poaching efforts. Former

poachers from the local population were trained as protectors, and

bushmeat camps and major elephant poachers were quickly reduced.

A training camp was established to train eco-guards for DzangaSangha and other protected areas within the region. Before this

protection program began, you were lucky to see one elephant at

the now famous Dzanga bye. Today, at any time of the day a visitor

may encounter 50 to 200 elephants using this clearing. Research at

this bye has identified over 3,000 individual elephants using this

clearing alone. I invite you all to come and see this amazing place

any time you would like.

By 1990, the Dzanga-Ndoki National Park and the DzangaSangha Dense Forest Reserve were officially created. The interior

regulations for the park and reserve called for 90 percent of the

tourism revenues to be disbursed locally, and close to 200 people

found employment. As local people began to receive the conservation dividend, they began to realize that live elephants at the

Dzanga bye were more valuable than dead elephants. Conservation

began to be seen as a viable development tool, and the wildlife

began to rebound.

We are also working with the logging companies in the region,

getting them to take their responsibilities, to close off roads to

poachers, to provide alternatives to poaching, and to sanction the

transport of meat on their logging vehicles.

We recognize, though, that elephants don’t carry passports, and

this forest is contiguous across the borders into the Congo and

59

southeastern Cameroon, and the development of a trinational protected area complex is proposed. Three national parks were developed and officially joined into the Dzanga River Trinational in December 2000, allowing trans-border anti-poaching patrols. Now a

poacher apprehended in Dzanga-Sangha can no longer flee into

Cameroon or the Congo. The result is a trinational protected area

system covering over 7 million acres. This trinational program is

a direct result of the unprecedented political commitment expressed in the Yaounde Declaration on Conservation and Sustainable Management of the Forests, signed by the heads of state of six

Central African countries in March 1999 and has resulted in the

creation of additional forest protected areas totaling approximately

15,000 square miles. And they have a plan for 12 additional transborder programs like the Dzanga River Trinational which they

would like to implement in the next 5 years.

In order to stem the bushmeat crisis in Central Africa, we are

requesting the leadership of the U.S. Government to support these

Yaounde Summit commitments. The key to conservation of the forests in the Congo Basin is the development of an ecologically representative, financial viable protected area network spanning the

entire basin from the Mountains of the Moon to the Gulf of Guinea,

connected by conservation corridors of sustainably managed forests.

Over the next few weeks, WWF, WCS, and CI will submit a joint

proposal to the U.S. Government requesting $15 million a year for

10 years, likely to be administered through CARPE or Fish and

Wildlife Service, that we hope will result in over 30 million acres

of functional national parks, over 60 million acres of managed logging concessions in the surrounding areas, and a vast reduction in

the biodiversity loss through the bushmeat trade.

Mr. Chairman, it is a time of great conservation convergence in

the Congo Basin. The stars are truly aligned for the first time in

the history where the political will of the region’s governments is

at an all-time high. Key conservation organizations are taking a

common path to support a protected area network spanning the

basis. And the U.S. Government has taken leadership in the Congo

Basin Initiative, forming a conservation constellation which bodes

well for timely efforts in this region.

I have also submitted for the record a report made by the Traffic

Bureau on the bushmeat trade in East and Southern Africa that

is not included in my oral testimony.

Thank you very much, and I would be happy to answer any questions, and also happy to take you out in the field any time you

would like to.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Carroll follows:]

Statement of Dr. Richard W. Carroll, Director, West and Central Africa and

Madagascar Program, World Wildlife Fund

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity

to testify today. I am Dr. Richard Carroll, Director for West and Central Africa and

Madagascar at the World Wildlife Fund. WWF is the largest private conservation

organization working internationally to protect wildlife and wildlife habitats. We

currently sponsor conservation programs in more than 100 countries, thanks to support of 1.2 million members in the United States and more than 5 million members

worldwide.

We are here today to discuss the devastating impact of the bushmeat trade in

Africa and some solutions to protect the many species affected by this trade. We are

60

also here to discuss the future of millions of Africans who depend on forest products

for their livelihoods. The United States, primarily through programs administered

by the Fish and Wildlife Service and USAID—in particular, CARPE—has played a

critical role in the protection and conservation of the forest and its wildlife. World

Wildlife Fund strongly urges that these programs be increased and expanded to

firmly establish a network of ecologically representative protected areas spanning

the Congo Basin.

The Bushmeat Crisis in the Congo Basin

• The Bushmeat Crisis in the Congo Basin is a human health and food security

issue, an economic and political issue as well as an urgent ecological issue. The

bushmeat trade is the leading cause of biodiversity loss in the Congo Basin and

is driven by an accelerating logging industry and growing human population.

• Approximately 20 million people depend on the resources of the forest for food,

materials and shelter. Consumption of bushmeat is estimated to be about one

million metric tonnes per year. As human populations are expected to double

in the next 25 years, if no alternatives are found to the bushmeat crisis, it will

spell extinction of most wildlife species and result in a massive food disaster.

• If the demand for bushmeat continues to grow as expected, and consumers do

not switch to the meat of domestic animals, we can expect that apes and most

large bodied forest mammals will be eradicated from the forest, throughout

much of the region.

• The bushmeat problem covers both subsistence hunting and commercial hunting. Commercial hunting supplies urban markets in the African countries themselves, and even serves consumption needs abroad where there are large expatriate populations of Africans.

• Projections of future logging trends suggest that an estimated 70 percent of the

region’s forests could be lost by 2040 unless large-scale changes aimed at conserving the forest and the livelihoods of its native people are taken now.

• At the local level, bushmeat is a survival issue. Simple subsistence is no longer

possible. All communities and all families are part of the cash economy, however modestly. Families must pay school fees, buy medicines, purchase salt,

sugar, soap and kerosene.

• Civil conflict both stems from and creates resource degradation. Increasingly,

military weapons are used by commercial poachers, especially for large animals

such as elephants. Most illegal shooting of bushmeat still takes place with shotguns using shells manufactured in Congo or Nigeria. Pressure should be

brought to close these factories and limit the availability of hunting apparatus

such as steel cable used for snares.

• Logging companies are showing an increasing willingness to collaborate, especially on reduction of bushmeat hunting on their concessions. Examples are the

work of WCS in Congo and of WWF with a Malaysian company near the

Minkebe reserve in Gabon. These methods hold promise for replication throughout the priority regions.

• The chimpanzee and other primates have been suggested as potential vectors

for the emerging diseases related to HIV/AIDs and the recent outbreaks of

Ebola have been linked to the handling and eating of wildlife.

• For forest people like the BaAka pygmies, whose cultural, physical and spiritual

life depends on an intact forest, forest and wildlife depletion means cultural extinction of these forest peoples.

• WWF is working with governments and private railway companies in Cameroon

and Gabon to reduce transport of bushmeat.

• In terms of GDP, all sub–Saharan countries allocate a relatively larger percentage of their budgets to national protected area systems than do either the

United States or Canada.

• The Yaounde Heads of State Summit and Declaration have raised the political

commitment to conservation in the Congo Basin by a quantum leap and has

presented a unique opportunity to establish a coherent conservation plan for the

Congo Basin. This plan calls for a regional network of transborder and other

protected areas, a halt to uncontrolled and illegal logging, and hunting and

greater integration of local populations and the private sector in forest management.

WHY IT IS IMPORTANT: BIODIVERSITY AND RESOURCES IN THE FORESTS

OF CENTRAL AFRICA

Stretching from the Mountains of the Moon in eastern Democratic Republic of the

Congo to the coast of the Gulf of Guinea, the Congo Basin contains a quarter of the

world’s tropical forests, covering 2.8 million square kilometers. Forest covers almost

61

50 percent of the landmass spanning the political boundaries of Cameroon, Equatorial Guinea, the Central African Republic, the Republic of Congo (Brazzaville) and

the Democratic Republic of Congo. The Congo Basin is exceeded in size only by the

Amazon Basin. The tropical forest block also contains some of the richest biodiversity in Africa, which includes countless plant, animal, and insect species. The region

harbors the most diverse assemblage of plants and animals in Africa, with more

than 1,000 species of birds and over 10,000 plant species of which about 3,000 are

endemic to the region. The forests are home to about 400 mammal species, including

intact populations of large mammals, such as forest elephants, gorillas, bongos and

buffaloes. They are also important as a source of food, materials and shelter for over

20 million people.

The Central African forests are home to some of the most spectacular and endangered wildlife species in Africa, including one half of the remaining elephants on the

continent. A keystone species of these forests are the forest elephants, which create

habitat for other wildlife and disperse seeds. Also making their home in this region

are the three subspecies of gorilla: the endangered mountain gorilla, the eastern

lowland gorilla and the more numerous western lowland gorilla. Other terrestrial

wildlife found in the Congo Basin are chimpanzees, bonobo, okapi, and bongo. The

rivers of Central Africa harbor some of the richest concentrations of the world’s

aquatic biodiversity, most of which is endemic. Plant species in the Congo Basin,

many with medicinal properties, are numerous and continue to be discovered.

In addition to the myriad species of flora and fauna, the Congo Basin is home to

people representing a range of ethnic groups, including the many different groups

of indigenous hunter-gatherer people. The BaAka are one such group whose lives

and well-being—physical, cultural, and spiritual—are intimately linked with the forests. The forest also represents great economic importance and promise to these people and their countries.

The Congo Basin is also extremely rich in natural resources. The region’s crude

oil production surpassed four million barrels a day in 2000, more than Iran, Venezuela or Mexico. The United States gets 16 percent of its oil from sub–Saharan

Africa—almost equaling imports from Saudi Arabia. By 2015, it is expected that the

region will supply the United States with 25 percent of its oil—surpassing the Persian Gulf. The vast majority of this oil will come from the Gulf of Guinea, in the

Congo Basin.

Development of this strategic resource area is vital to America’s national security.

However, unless conservation of the rainforest is expanded now, one resource will

simply be traded for another. Both can be used; one can be saved.

WHY IT IS THREATENED: BUSHMEAT, LOGGING, POPULATION GROWTH

AND RESOURCE EXTRACTION

Central African forests are under threat by a multitude of factors. Almost four

million hectares of Africa’s forests are destroyed each year as a result of forest clearance for agriculture to feed the growing number of people in the region. Mineral and

oil extraction, unsustainable logging and pervasive political instability are other factors. Road building by logging companies penetrates into the heart of previously remote forests and gives easy access to commercial hunters and buyers of bush meat.

This, combined with a lack of surveillance, has led to extreme over-hunting in Central Africa’s forests of such vulnerable species as the western lowland gorilla, elephant and leopard. The chimpanzee—recently disclosed as the potential source of

the HIV 1 virus in humans and vital to medical research—is also severely endangered; its forest home is being logged and it continues to be hunted and sold as food

in Central Africa. With human populations growing at 2–3percent and subsistence

level agriculture still the predominant source of food and income for the majority

of Central Africans, habitat loss as a result of forest conversion to agriculture, and

climate change are likely to be the most significant long term threats to biodiversity.

The immediate threats are illegal logging and commercial hunting and trading of

wildlife for meat and ivory facilitated by logging operations.

Logging is an economically important land-use throughout Central Africa. All nations within the region are dependent on extractive industries for a large percentage

of their Gross Domestic Product, almost all foreign exchange, and much of the tax

revenues that finance government expenses. Logging companies have control over

50–80 percent of the forests outside protected areas. In many cases, poor management practices and technical shortcomings cause needless damage and degradation

in and around logging concessions, while many operations are carried out in violation of forestry regulations. Although it contributes significantly to national economies and, to some extent, to local needs, illegal logging has a particularly devastating impact on biodiversity. Illegal logging deliberately targets the remaining

pristine forests, including protected areas. Available data indicate that deforestation

62

rates were relatively low until the 1980s, but increased rapidly during the 1990s.

This rate is still increasing.

Logging industries directly and indirectly facilitate a large increase in commercial

bushmeat hunting. While the hunting of bushmeat has been a traditional livelihood

for forest indigenous people, in particular pygmies, the development of a large-scale

commercial trade in bushmeat is relatively recent and has been facilitated by the

development of logging roads deep into the forest. Current logging practices not only

result in increased consumption of bushmeat within concession areas but also facilitate the supply of bushmeat to urban markets and enhance the profitability of the

trade.

This alarming level of threat is caused by many inter-linked factors. In general,

national governments have continued the forest exploitation policies introduced last

century by the colonial powers. They are supported and encouraged in this by multilateral and bilateral institutions, to which they are heavily indebted, as part of the

structural adjustment polices and economic liberalization programs imposed as a

condition of further lending. Thus, the primary goal of forest policies in the region

is to promote industrial timber production for export by allocating most of the forest

as logging concessions. Unfortunately, the policy, institutional and legal frameworks

for controlling private sector interests and enforcing conservation regulations are extremely weak. As a result, illegal logging practices have flourished throughout the

Congo Basin, combined with unsustainable use of other wild resources by a growing

population with few economic alternatives to face rising poverty. Other root causes

include the lack of technical, scientific and financial resources and, in some countries, political instability and recent wars.

Neglecting the threats from unsustainable forestry operations in the short and

medium term will not only undermine the efforts to reduce poverty but will create

more poverty. The result of this will be more instability in the Congo Basin. The

costs for mitigating the impacts of forestry operations will be much cheaper now

than later within the next 10 or 20 years deforestation is likely to be at the maximum. It is critical to urgently mobilize resources to implement a comprehensive

strategy to protect the invaluable forests and associated resources within the Congo

Basin.

WHAT CAN BE DONE: CROSS–BORDER COOPERATION, PROTECTED AREAS

AND SUSTAINABLE LOGGING

The Yaounde Summit

The Congo Basin is a challenging environment for forest conservation. Political instability, high levels of government debt, a decline in export commodity prices and

a long history of poor resource management have led some analysts to wonder if

conservation can actually happen. However, the good news is that low population

densities and large areas of intact forests provide an excellent starting point for forest protection.

One of the most encouraging signs is the growing support among governments

and communities in Central Africa for region-wide, collaborative forest conservation.

A promising first step was taken in 1996 when the Ministers of Forestry, NGOs and

international organizations signed an international declaration for forest conservation—The Brazzaville Process. Coordinated by the World Conservation Union

(IUCN), this provides a forum for governments and other stakeholders to work together on forest conservation in the region. What was urgently needed, however,

was higher level commitments to forest conservation that could be turned into practical action on the ground.

The Yaounde Forest Summit held on March 17, 1999, hosted by President Paul

Biya of Cameroon and chaired by HRH The Duke of Edinburgh, was the first public

expression of the high level political will to conserve the forests of Central Africa.

The Summit created a unique opportunity for the governments of countries of the

Congo Basin to make commitments to forest conservation. Bringing together six

African Heads of state and representatives from the international community including the World Bank, the United Nations and European Commission, the summit’s aim was: To discuss and conclude new trans-national protected areas in the

Congo Basin and agree upon a shared, long-term vision for these forests.

The Yaounde Summit marked a watershed in forest conservation in Central

Africa. The summit opened a new era of ‘conservation convergence’ in Central Africa

and was the first time that regional Heads of State came together to develop a coherent plan for the conservation of the second largest contiguous forest in the world.

World Wildlife Fund helped organize the summit and the resulting Yaounde Declaration contained plans to protect vast tracts of forest in the Congo Basin. The

summit marked a turning point in the political commitment to the region’s environVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:10 May 06, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 80615.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
63

ment. A key element is that Central African Governments have set aside areas of

great economic value to themselves that are of global biodiversity significance.

Far from being ‘‘a series of empty promises,’’ the Yaounde Declaration has resulted in solid conservation achievements in Central Africa. The total amount of additional forest protected areas created, confirmed or in the final stages of

gazettement since March 1999 totals 13,866 square miles! In Cameroon alone three

new national parks and a gorilla sanctuary have been created. Two other national

parks are in the final stages of gazettement. Six new protected areas have been created, covering an area of 5,759 square miles (or 3 percent of the national territory).

Furthermore, these areas represent economic forests that have been set aside for

conservation in an area where public auction of logging concessions yields offers of

the equivalent of $21 per hectare, representing foregone income to the Cameroon

Government of over $30 million. In a further indication of political will, the government has recently withdrawn eight logging concessions in an ecologically sensitive

area and is negotiating with conservation agencies to find ecologically acceptable alternatives to logging.

Other countries in the region (Gabon, Congo, Equatorial Guinea) have also increased their protected areas in response to the Yaounde Declaration. In the Congo

Republic in December 2000, the government announced that it would quadruple the

size of the Odzala National Park to over one million hectares, thereby creating one

of the largest national parks in Central Africa.

Regional officials took another major step forward in December 2000. A collaborative management agreement between the governments of Cameroon, Central

African Republic and Congo has been signed, creating the Sangha River Trinational,

which links three contiguous national parks (Lobeke in Cameroon, Dzanga–Ndoki

in Central African Republic and Nouabale ́–Ndoki in the Congo Republic) protecting

2.8 million hectares extending into all three countries. A similar transborder conservation program covering 15,000 square miles in the boundary region of Cameroon, Gabon and Congo is currently being negotiated. Africa already spends a

greater relative proportion of its GNP on its protected areas than does Europe and

the United States combined.

Tropical forests represent not only reservoirs of biodiversity but are also important economic resources. Forest exploitation will continue. Recent experiences in

Congo (Nouabale ́–Ndoki) and Gabon (Minkebe) show that logging companies are increasingly willing to collaborate with conservationists and that when agreements

are established, they can effectively control the level of bushmeat hunting.

While Africa has shown considerable political will in creating this protected area

network, it is clear that demographic trends and the need for agricultural land are

unlikely to result in more than 10 percent of the African territory being set aside

for protected areas in the long term.

Conservation in Central Africa should concentrate on securing protected areas

and in ensuring that they are well-managed and effectively protected. Central Africa

is one of the last remaining areas in the world where vast, fairly intact forest still

exist. We have the unique opportunity and political momentum to support the positive efforts fostered within the region to create a world class network of protected

areas spanning much of the central African forests, linked by corridors of sustainable managed forests. The potential represented by the Yaounde Summit may be

the last window of opportunity for conservation in central Africa and writing it off

as ‘empty promises’ will certainly result in an empty forest.

We live in a world filled with bad news, especially the news which comes from

much of Central Africa. It is easy to write these countries off as a loss. I submit

that the results demonstrated from the Yaounde Summit represent a great glimmer

of hope for the forest, wildlife and people of the region and the world should come

to their aid. Failure to substantively act now will be a failure for the international

community and an irretrievable loss for humanity.

WWF and its partners recognize that protected areas alone are not sufficient to

conserve biodiversity or to ensure the continued provision of vital goods and services

from the forest. For this reason, WWF seeks to promote more sustainable management of the vast majority of the world’s forest that remain outside of protected

areas.

Sustainable Forest Management

The forests of Central Africa are currently under threat from logging as a result

of demand for timber from transnational logging companies in Asia and Europe. In

1990, the volume of timber exported from the Congo Basin to Asia was less than

200,000 cubic meters. In 1997, this has risen to over two million cubic meters.

Today, in Gabon, 800,000 hectares of forests are allocated to logging concessions and

this is likely to increase to more than two million hectares under current pressures.

64

In neighboring Equatorial Guinea, exports have tripled since 1994. A growing demand for timber in China and other emerging economies has led to exploitation of

forests in West Africa’s coastal states—where traditionally there have been weak

controls and legislation—mobilizing major capital resources with unprecedented

speed and flexibility, and exploiting greater proportions of timber resources than

ever before. Conservationists predict that most forests which are not currently designated as protected areas will be subject to some logging activity within the next

five years.

WWF is promoting sustainable forest management in Cameroon, CAR and Gabon

through a collaborative program between WWF Belgium, the WWF–Cameroon Program Office and the WWF–Central Africa Regional Program Office funded by the

European Union. In each country, national working groups have been established

to develop regional certification standards under the auspices of the Forest Stewardship Council. In addition, WWF is providing support to one private logging company

in Gabon to design a sustainable forest management plan which takes into account

the impact of the logging activity on biodiversity and the local population.

In CAR, WWF, in partnership with the government, is working to promote sustainable management of the Societe de Bois de Bayanga logging concession within

the Dzanga–Sangha Dense Forest Special Reserve. The Dzanga–Sangha Project is

charged with assisting in the control of logging operations to ensure that the practices are consistent with the Forestry Code and with assisting in the development

of a sustainable forest management plan for this concession.

In Cameroon, WWF is implementing the Jengi initiative, a pilot project to establish sustainable forest management and a protected areas system in the forests of

south-eastern Cameroon. Although the Lake Lobeke Reserve (part of the Sangha

River Trinational Protected Areas complex) and Boumba–Bek–Nki Complex (a component of the trans border initiative) will preserve part of this forest and help ensure a homeland for the BaAka pygmies, the speed and nature of current commercial logging, if unchecked, will result in three forest islands in a sea of devastation.

Jengi to the BaAka is the spirit of the forest. Jengi presides over the initiation

ceremonies of youth and provides guidance for these forest people whose cultural,

physical and spiritual live depends on an intact forest. The BaAka have lived in harmony with the forest for centuries and now their songs are being drowned by the

noise of bulldozers and chainsaws. Poaching camps follow the bulldozers, the wildlife disappears, and in many villages, the Jengi has not come for years. The Jengi

project aims to halt and reverse forest mining, to achieve large-scale sustainable forest management and timber production, to develop alternative sources of income for

local communities and to develop a conservation trust fund to support the three protected areas. The aim is to restore the Jengi as the guardian of the forest.

Most of the protected areas in Central Africa are surrounded or impacted in some

way by logging concessions. Logging operations often bring in a significant immigrant labor force and become a pole of attraction for others seeking economic opportunities with these companies. Those that find work have money to buy food and

clothes, and those that don’t have time to kill literally—by becoming bush meat

hunters to supply the concession work force. In many concessions, bush meat is the

only source of protein available and is sanctioned by the companies, who are responsible to ensure adequate food and supplies to their laborers.

Although to date, the forest certification process has had limited success in Central Africa due to a reluctance by companies to adopt logging practices that may be

more costly and where there is limited market demand for certified products, we

have found a willingness by companies to try to limit bush meat hunting and transportation on their concessions. Concessions bordering the Minkebe Forest Reserve

in Gabon, the Dzanga–Sangha Reserve in CAR, Lake Lobeke in Cameroon and

Nouabale ́–Ndoki in Congo–Brazzaville have all put in place measures to control

bush meat exploitation, including sanctions of employees and drivers involved in

hunting or transportation, closing roads to prevent access, providing alternative food

sources, and closer collaboration with international NGOs and government authorities.

Congo Basin Initiative

Overall, the key to conservation of the forests of the Congo Basin is the development of a network of ecologically representative, financially viable, protected areas

spanning the basin, from the Mountains of the Moon to the Gulf of Guinea, connected by conservation corridors of sustainable managed forests. Over the next

month, WWF, WCS and CI will submit a joint proposal to the U.S. government and

to private sector donors to co-fund this program. If funded, this program will have

a profoundly beneficial impact on the environmental and economic welfare of the

Congo Basin.

65

WWF, WCS and CI believe that expanded U.S. support for the Congo Basin Initiative will demonstrate the leadership role that the United States can and is playing in environmental conservation. U.S. support of this initiative will have a prominent impact at the upcoming World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg later this year.

The tangible benefits of this project will be:

• Over 30 million acres of functioning national park land in five Congo Basin

countries.

• Over 60 million acres of managed logging concessions in surrounding areas.

• Increased number of host governments in natural resource management.

• Significant shift in land-use management practices in host countries.

• Significant and vibrant eco-tourism industry established.

• Increased sustainability from tourism revenue.

The more intangible benefits of this project will be:

• Reduced rates of deforestation.

• Vast reduction in biodiversity loss.

• Increased U.S. presence and economic opportunities.

• Better governance and transparency.

• Significantly increased security over vast areas of forest.

• Reduction of increase in levels of communicable diseases.

• Sustainable development based on renewable outputs.

In 1995, a USAID program called CARPE was created for Central Africa. This

program was designed to increase forest management in the Congo Basin and its

extreme success has been documented. WWF, WCS and CI believe that this program should be expanded and extended to coincide with the pressures being put on

the Congo Basin from development and other human factors. WWF and other organizations are also seeking vastly increased funding for the African Elephant and

Great Ape Conservation Acts. These programs managed through the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife service have been extremely instrumental in protection of these keystone

species and helping to stem the bushmeat tide.

In closing, Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, WWF wishes to express our gratitude for your active interest in helping governments in the Congo

Basin region to address the bushmeat crisis. We stand ready to assist the

Committee in providing constructive solutions to this serious problem.

[Attachments to Mr. Carroll’s statement follow:]

66

67

68

Mr. GILCHREST. I think we will have to pay a visit maybe sometime this fall.

Dr. Robinson?

STATEMENT OF JOHN G. ROBINSON, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT

AND DIRECTOR, INTERNATIONAL CONSERVATION,

WILDLIFE CONSERVATION SOCIETY

Dr. ROBINSON. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for the opportunity to comment on this issue. I am here to represent the experiences of Wildlife Conservation Society, WCS, which conserves

wildlife and wildlands throughout the world.

Fifteen years ago, our field conservationists began to describe a

mounting wave of hunting that was affecting wildlife around the

world. The wave first passed through Asia, extirpating wildlife in

the forests of Southeast Asia. It is now cresting in Africa, and we

anticipate that hunting at a similar scale will well in Latin America within the next 5 to 10 years.

The present magnitude of the problem in Africa has captured all

of our attention, and our testimony will focus on this part of the

world, but recognize that this is a global phenomenon. The phenomenon has been called the ‘‘bushmeat’’ or ‘‘wild meat crisis’’ because hunting is being driven by the demand for wild meat for

human consumption.

The Wildlife Conservation Society would like to thank the Subcommittee, and particularly you, Mr. Chairman, for recognizing the

importance of this issue.

The recent explosion of hunting in Africa, like the situation in

Southeast Asia 20 years ago, has been stimulated by road construction associated with logging and petroleum development. The network of roads reaches into the most remote areas and allows commercial hunters entry into the forest and provides hunters with access to urban markets. It has been open season on all wild species.

The scale of hunting in Africa right now is really truly vast, and

you have heard a lot of testimony to that effect. In Central Africa

alone, consumption of meat from wild animals is at least one million metric tons, and estimates go as high as five. One million metric tons is equivalent to 9 billion quarter-pound hamburgers of wild

meat a year, enough to give even McDonald’s pause. There are 33

million people living in Central Africa, and on average, every man,

woman, and child eats the equivalent of one bushmeat hamburger

each and every day of the year. Central African families eat as

much meat as most families in Europe and the U.S., but most of

the meat, unlike in Europe and U.S., comes from wildlife.

This level of harvest is not sustainable. Harvest threatens the

survival of many wildlife species and is especially pernicious to

those large-bodied, slow-breeding species, a special conservation

concern, such as great apes, large carnivores, and elephants—all

species recognized by the U.S. Congress as needing special attention. And as Mr. Graham said earlier, the loss of wild species affects the functionality and integrity of forests as a whole.

In addition to the forests and the species themselves, it is the

millions of rural poor living at the ecological frontier who suffer the

most from the loss of wild species. While they themselves hunt and

sell bushmeat, they are losing their food resources. These are the

69

people identified as the focus for the New Partnership for Africa’s

Development, NEPAD, which was supported at last month’s G-8

meeting, who live on less than US$1 a day.

Addressing the bushmeat problem is difficult. In our programs

and in the programs of many of our collaborators, we have found

some approaches which offer a way forward.

First and foremost, establishing refuges for wildlife populations

is essential. A network of well-managed protected areas will both

support diverse populations of wildlife and provide reservoirs for

wildlife that are being hunted elsewhere.

Second, the commercial trade in bushmeat needs to be regulated

and phased out as quickly as possible, and the distinction has been

made often between subsistence and commercial trade. Often this

can be accomplished by working with the logging companies themselves. As you heard from Mr. Burnam, the Wildlife Conservation

Society has been working with a private timber company,

Congolaise Industrielle des Bois, and the Ministry of Forest Economy in northern Congo since 1998 to reduce hunting and transport

of bushmeat in 4.5 million acres of its concession.

Third, ways to provide alternative sources of animal protein to

rural communities and to workers in companies that are exploiting

those natural resources must be developed.

The U.S. has several immediate opportunities to help stem the

tide of bushmeat hunting. The G-8 Africa Action Plan in support

of the New Partnership for Africa’s Development, for example,

identifies a very general strategy that is of relevance to the

bushmeat problem.

We would specifically urge the Subcommittee to: recognize the

enormity of the bushmeat crisis, both for wild species and for the

ecosystems where they occur, and for the rural poor who have traditionally depended and will depend on wildlife resources; recognize

also that the bushmeat crisis is not just about driving some species

to extinction, it is not just about great apes and elephants, it is

about the destruction of the very fabric of tropical forests and the

lives of the people who are supported by those forests.

We also urge that we support the Administration efforts to establish partnerships with African countries and provide support

through mechanisms like NEPAD that will strengthen good governance, encourage peace and security, build institutional capacity,

and provide the hunting to accomplish these tasks.

And, finally, we encourage Congress to increase funding for the

Central Africa Regional Program for the Environment, CARPE,

which you heard about earlier, the Multinational Species Conservation Fund, and the Global Environment Facility, GEF. To varying

degrees, these underfunded programs support critical conservation

activities, including protected areas establishment and management, anti-poaching enforcement, local and institutional capacity

building, and monitoring.

I thank you for the opportunity to comment on these issues, and

I would be pleased to answer any questions.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Robinson follows:]

70

Statement of Dr. John G. Robinson, Senior Vice President and Director,

International Conservation, Wildlife Conservation Society

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee: Thank you very much for the opportunity to comment on the growing problem of bushmeat consumption. I am here

today to represent the views of the Wildlife Conservation Society, founded in 1895

as the New York Zoological Society, a 107-year old US-based membership organization. The Wildlife Conservation Society conserves wildlife and wild lands throughout

the world, as well as managing animal collections at the Bronx Zoo and other ‘‘Living Institutions’’ in the New York area.

Fifteen years ago, our researchers and conservationists in the field began to describe a mounting wave of hunting that was affecting wildlife living in the forests

and grasslands around the world. Since humans evolved we have hunted and eaten

wildlife. Today it is only the poorest families that rely on meat from wild species

as an important source of protein. This is true even in the United States where families in poor rural districts still hunt for the freezer. When hunting becomes commercial to satisfy demand from urban populations, it quickly becomes

unsustainable, as we found in this country at the turn of the last century. Now it

is the tropical regions that face a bushmeat crisis. The wave first passed through

Asia, extirpating wildlife in the forests of South-east Asia and Indochina. It is now

cresting in Africa, and we anticipate that hunting at a similar scale will swell in

Latin America within the next five to ten years. The present magnitude of the problem in Africa has captured all of our attention, and our testimony will focus on this

part of the world, but recognize that it is a global phenomenon. The phenomenon

has been called the ‘‘bushmeat’’ or ‘‘wild meat crisis’’ because the hunting is being

driven by a demand for wild meat for human consumption.

The Wildlife Conservation Society would like to thank the Subcommittee, and especially Chairman Gilchrest, for recognizing the importance of this issue. Unrestrained wildlife harvest threatens the survival of many wildlife species, especially

those living in the tropical forests of the world. Hunting is especially pernicious for

those large-bodied, slow breeding species of special conservation concern such as the

great apes, large carnivores, and elephants all species recognized by the U.S. Congress as needing special attention. The local extinction and loss of wild species has

cascading effects on the functionality and integrity of forests as a whole, and endangers efforts to both protect and manage those forests in a sustainable fashion. And

the loss of wildlife resources threatens people’s health and well-being and affects

their cultural integrity.

The recent explosion of hunting in Africa, like the situation in South-east Asia

and Indochina twenty years ago, has been stimulated by the opening up of previously inaccessible regions. Road construction often associated with logging and petroleum development has created a network of roads that reach into the most remote areas. This network allows commercial hunters entry into the forest, and provides hunters with access to urban markets. Moreover, much of forested Africa has

experienced in recent years the additional challenge of civil unrest and conflict. The

resulting breakdown of national and local authority has left a governance void in

many places and precluded most attempts to manage and control the hunting. It

has been open season on all wild species.

The scale of hunting in forested Africa is vast. In central Africa alone, consumption of meat from wild animals is estimated at between one and five million metric

tons a year. If we take the most conservative figure of one million metric tons, this

is equivalent to 9 billion quarter-pound hamburgers of wild meat a year enough to

give even McDonalds pause. Who eats all those hamburger-equivalents? There are

33 million people living in Central Africa, and, on average, every man, woman and

child eats the equivalent of on bushmeat ‘‘hamburger’’ each and every day of the

year. Central Africa families eat as much meat as do many families in Europe and

the United States, with one difference most of the meat eaten in rural Central

Africa comes from wildlife.

This level of harvest is not sustainable. We estimate that today’s harvest rate in

Central African forest is at least five times what could be produced sustainably

under even optimal conditions. The consequence of this overexploitation is that wildlife is being strip-mined out of tropical forests, resulting in what has been called

the ‘‘Empty Forest’’ a forest without wildlife, unnaturally quiet. Across Central

Africa, we are estimating that, except in adequately protected or inaccessible areas,

ungulate populations have been already reduced by 50%, primate populations perhaps as much as 90%. Elephants, so long pursued for their ivory, are now also hunted for their meat. Hunters rarely target particular wildlife species because they are

simply hunting for meat. So almost all animals from mammals, to birds, to replies

are affected by hunting. Constant heavy hunting is destroying local populations of

71

the most vulnerable species, especially those that large-bodied and breed slowly: gorillas, chimpanzees, bonobos, many monkey species, the large carnivores, and elephants. As species are extirpated from one area, hunters move into new areas.

The loss of wildlife species has wider implications on the forests themselves. The

species preferred by hunters generally are large-bodied, typically fruit eaters and

herbivorous browsers. These species frequently play keystone roles in forest ecology

as pollinators, seed dispersers, and seed predators, as well as comprising the majority of the vertebrate biomass. Their reduction or extirpation produces cascading effects through the biological community, causing other species to disappear, and the

ability of the forest to recover from disturbance to diminish.

In addition to the forest and the species themselves, it is the rural poor who suffer

the most from the loss of wildlife species. The commercial trade in bushmeat provides only a transitory benefit and a long-term cost to these people. It is the millions

of people at the margins of the cash economy, who are at the ecological frontier, and

whose lives are intertwined with the wildlife, plants and wider functioning of the

forest. It is they who experience drops in daily protein consumption as forests are

opened up to outsiders. It is the people identified as the focus on the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD), launched at last month’s G8 meeting, who

live on less than US$1 per day. They lack the education, skills and cultural context

to take advantage of cash-earning jobs from plantations and industry, and as their

wildlife resources disappear, their backs are against the wall. Lacking capital and

access to markets, they cannot switch to alternative sources of animal protein.

Addressing the bushmeat problem is difficult. How to impose regulation on a

human activity too variable and dispersed to be considered a true industry? How

to draw the line between subsistence hunting by local people and commercial exploitation by outsiders, when there are so many examples that fall between the two extremes? How do we tackle a problem that is but an indirect effect of national expansion into the frontier? In our programs we have found some approaches that offer

a way forward.

First and foremost, establishing refuges for wildlife populations is essential. A

network of well-managed protected areas will both support more diverse and abundant populations of wildlife and provide ‘‘reservoirs’’ for wildlife that are being hunted elsewhere. Establishment of such reserves is thus crucial to steward the resources essential to the nutritional, social and cultural well-being of the rural poor

living in forest environments. The Wildlife Conservation Society, and our collaborators WWF and CI, are active in establishing and managing parks throughout the

Congo Basin. Proposed and existing parks in the five countries of the Basin might

cover some 30 million acres. The key to better management of protected areas is

expanding and strengthening staff capacity to regulate access to and use of protected forest resources.

Second, the commercial trade in bushmeat needs to be regulated and phased out

as quickly as possible. Many tropical countries lack the government institutions

needed to accomplish this. Often the only effective institutions to be found in remote

forest areas are the timber companies themselves. The Wildlife Conservation Society, for instance, has been working with a private timber company, Congolaise

Industrielle des Bois (CIB), and the Ministry of Forestry Economy in northern

Congo since 1998 to reduce hunting and transport of bushmeat in 4.5 million acres

of its concession. The effort is a four-pronged one of education, enforcement, provision of alternative sources of animal protein, and monitoring. So it involves the local

communities in managing and protecting wildlife populations, and monitors markets

in logging camps and villages. It has established an ‘‘ecoguard’’ brigade to close

down the commercial trade through the control of vehicle traffic on logging roads,

and by preventing wild meat being carried out of the area on flights down to the

cities.

Third, ways to provide alternative sources of animal protein to rural communities

and to workers in companies exploiting natural resources must be developed. The

Wildlife Conservation Society, for instance, is working with the CIB logging company to establish other economically-feasible sources of animal protein for people

living within their concessions.

The U.S. has several immediate opportunities to help stem the tide of bushmeat

hunting: making nonconcessional debt eligible under the Tropical Forest Management Act; encouraging USAID programs and the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) efforts that focus on the development of alternative protein sources

and livelihoods; and playing a leadership role in establishing an African forest certification program for logging companies that practice wildlife management and help

prevent bushmeat hunting and trade. In addition, the G8 Africa Action Plan in support of the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) identifies a general

72

strategy for Africa that is highly relevant to the bushmeat problem. NEPAD calls

for:• Resource mobilization. In the context of the bushmeat problem, there is a need

to establish funding mechanisms to support the establishment and sound management of protected areas. Even in the United States, the National Park Service is not economically self-sufficient. Economic incentives are also needed to encourage the timber industry to manage forest resources more sustainably including forest wildlife. Further funds are needed to develop alternative animal

protein sources for the rural poor living in the forest frontier. • Peace and security. This almost goes without saying. The protection of wild

areas and the sustainable use of natural resources requires good governance

and appropriate management. And this requires political, social and economic

stability. • Governance. In this context there is a need to ensure that national governments

have the capacity to engage with the natural resource extraction companies in

ways that are transparent and promote long-term, sustainable management of

all forest resources. In addition, the responsibility for many management decisions still remain with local governments, and it is important that their authority derives from well-informed, transparent, democratic processes. • Human resources. To ensure that the capacity to manage Central Africa’s wild

forests develops to address the threats from unsustainable hunting, we must reinforce and scale up ongoing training mechanisms and launch new avenues for

learning and in so doing help educate the next generation of conservation leaders. We need to ensure that the region’s resource management agencies have

the capacity to protect and manage the region’s natural resources.

We would therefore urge the Subcommittee to:

• Recognize the enormity of the bushmeat crisis, both for wild species and the

ecosystems where they occur, and for the rural poor who have traditionally depended and will need to depend on wildlife resources and forest biodiversity in

the future. Recognize that the bushmeat crisis is not just driving some species

to extinction, it is not just about threats to the Great Apes and elephants, it

is about the destruction of the very fabric of tropical forests and the lives of the

people who are supported by those forests. • Understand that consumption of bushmeat also has severe public health implications. Handling and eating wildlife, especially apes and other primates, increases the risk that people will contract deadly hemorrhagic diseases such as

Ebola, and has facilitated the emergence of new diseases like HIV/AIDS.

• Support Administration efforts to establish partnerships with African countries

and provide the support through the NEPAD process and the other identified

opportunities for the establishment of protected areas, efforts to curtail the commercial bushmeat trade, and ways to provide alternative sources of animal protein for the rural poor of Africa.

• Encourage Congress to increase funding for the Central Africa Regional Program for the Environment (CARPE), the Multinational Species Conservation

Fund and the Global Environment Facility (GEF). To varying degrees, these underfunded programs support critical conservation activities including protected

areas establishment and management, anti-poaching enforcement, local and institutional capacity building, and monitoring.

I thank you again for the opportunity to comment on these issues. I would be

happy to answer any questions.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Dr. Robinson.

Dr. Bakarr?

STATEMENT OF MOHAMED I BAKARR, SENIOR TECHNICAL

DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR APPLIED BIODIVERSITY SCIENCE,

CONSERVATION INTERNATIONAL

Dr. BAKARR. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I have already submitted my written testimony for the record and will,

therefore, focus on specific aspects with your permission, sir.

Mr. GILCHREST. Yes, sir.

Dr. BAKARR. I am here to represent the views of Conservation

International in my capacity as senior technical director in the

Center for Applied Biodiversity Science, which is leading CI’s stratVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:10 May 06, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 80615.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
73

egy for addressing the bushmeat issue in Africa. Thank you very

much for the opportunity to testify on this issue.

CI is a nonprofit organization dedicated to conservation of biodiversity, focusing specifically on the world’s biologically richest

and most threatened ecosystems where the risk of extinction is so

very real, as well as on tropical wilderness areas where opportunities for protecting large tracts of natural habitats still remain.

With programs in more than 30 countries around the world, CI’s

work focuses on demonstrating that human societies are able to

live harmoniously with nature. Wildlife utilization in general and

the bushmeat issue in particular are, therefore, at the very crux of

our conservation efforts and actions around the world.

For more than 10 years now, we have been working with local

communities, government agencies, scientists and other conservation professionals to analyze and understand the global implications of wildlife utilization and consumption. From the extensive

commercial trade of turtles in Southeast Asia to the subsistence

hunting practices of Pygmies in Central Africa, it has become clear

to us that the issues at stake are indeed very, very complex.

Mr. Chairman, the bushmeat issue and its consequences for

African wildlife and people has been eloquently outlined in the testimony of my colleagues on this panel. Therefore, I do not wish to

reiterate the same points but, rather, specifically highlight the concerns that we bring forward as an institution. And I will specifically ask that you allow me to draw one very significant conclusion

about the current status quo, and that is, whereas wildlife is still

very much an important resource for human livelihoods in Africa,

bushmeat utilization is no longer sustainable because populations

of most of the species involved are being greatly impacts and some

locally extirpated throughout their range. And as you can rightly

surmise, this implies a double-edged sword with respect to the

bushmeat problem in Africa. On the one hand, populations are

being extirpated; on the other hand, the livelihood of a great majority of people is increasingly at risk from the loss of wildlife. It is

this complex challenge we are confronted with for achieving conservation on the continent.

As a conservation organization that cares about people and wildlife, CI has been very keen on exploring and implementing solutions that accommodate this concern. We are committed to pursuing an integrated approach that accommodates diverse perspectives and involves multiple stakeholders and partners to maximize

success in mitigating the threat. In this regard, we have helped organize regional workshops in West and Central Africa where major

stakeholders have analyzed and discussed the social, cultural, economic, and biological contexts, and have helped establish frameworks for developing and implementing solutions. Our involvement

in the BCTF also reflects our commitment toward a broader alliance to tackle this complex and large-scale problem.

More specifically, our country programs are confronting the problem head on in the field by targeting all major stakeholders at the

national level. In Ghana, for example, the focus has been on mobilizing the public through a massive awareness and sensitization

campaign based on cultural and traditional practices, known as totems. Totems are wildlife entities, mostly animals, that symbolize

74

cultural values and beliefs to people. Although success is yet to be

translated in terms of actual reductions in bushmeat hunting and

threats to wildlife, the effort to link bushmeat problem to totems

has garnered the attention of all Ghanaians. We are pursuing similar approaches in Liberia with our partners, in Cote d’Ivoire and

Sierra Leone, in order to find locally appropriate solutions to the

problem.

Mr. Chairman, the scale of the bushmeat problem in Africa is

enormous. Long-term success, therefore, requires solutions that are

scaled up proportionally to ensure a balance between human livelihood needs and biodiversity. The piecemeal approach simply has

not worked, and even when it does, we are only prolonging the inevitable. We need landscape approaches that allow integration of

social, economic, and biological priorities. This is no doubt a

daunting task for African countries and conservation organizations,

and one that will require major investment and commitments by

governments and funding agencies.

The leadership of U.S. Government agencies in supporting bilateral initiatives on biodiversity conservation across Africa has been

formidable, as we heard this morning. The bushmeat crisis cannot

be separated from all other conservation challenges on the continent, which means that the U.S. Government assistance through

the USAID and international programs of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife and the USDA Forest Service has already made crucial contributions in one way or another toward addressing the problem.

Therefore, I propose here that considerations be given to the following specific strategies for increased funding from the U.S. Government, possibly through an especially targeted mechanism:

The expansion and effective management of protected areas is

absolutely crucial. As we heard this morning from my colleagues,

it is the only way we can guarantee the survival of viable populations of wildlife on the continent. Protected areas are for people.

They are not against people. That message will be made clear.

We need to promote alternative sources of protein. Africans are

very good at adapting. All of the wildlife can be hunted to extinction, and people will still have protein to feed on. So what is stopping us from raising the profile of those alternative sources right

now when we have a chance to save wildlife from extinction?

We need to be very, very strong and efficient at monitoring activities of extractive industries. Many of these countries depend on

extractive industries as a major source of income. If we cannot stop

those industries, we need to make their practices much more

efficient.

We need to raise public awareness and engage wider involvement

of people across the continent. There are traditional and cultural

implications for using bushmeat. We cannot work against people.

We have to understand their perspective and build it into our strategies in order to succeed at the bigger scale.

And, of course, we still need to promote more research and enhance our understanding of the species at hand.

I thank you very much once again, Mr. Chairman, and applaud

the efforts of this House Subcommittee in its attempt to understand the ramifications of this critically important challenge in

75

Africa. We look forward to working with you on any initiative that

will emerge from this hearing.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Bakarr follows:]

Statement of Dr. Mohamed I Bakarr, Senior Technical Director,

Center for Applied Biodiversity Science, Conservation International

Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, and colleagues on this panel good

morning. I thank you all very much for the opportunity to testify before you on the

growing problem of bushmeat consumption in Africa. I am here to represent the

views of Conservation International, in my capacity as Senior Technical Director in

the Center for Applied Biodiversity Science, which is leading CI’s strategy for addressing the bushmeat issue in Africa. CI is a non-profit organization dedicated to

the conservation of biodiversity, focusing specifically on the world’s biologically richest and most threatened ecosystems where the risk of extinction is ever so real, as

well as on tropical wilderness areas where opportunities for protecting large tracts

of natural habitats still remain. With programs in more than 30 countries around

the world, CI’s work focuses on demonstrating that human societies are able to live

harmoniously with nature. Wildlife utilization in general and the bushmeat issue

in particular are, therefore, at the very crux of our conservation efforts and actions

around the world.

For more than 10 years now, CI has been working with local communities, government agencies, scientists and other conservation professionals to analyze and understand the global implications of wildlife utilization and consumption. From the

extensive commercial trade of turtles in Southeast Asia to the subsistence hunting

practices of pygmies in Central Africa, it has become clear to us that the issues at

stake are indeed very complex. Although bushmeat utilization has been flagged

since the early 1960s as a potential long-term threat to wildlife populations in

Africa, it is the same practice that has sustained the livelihoods of many generations of Africans. For the most part, people in Africa still hunt wildlife and consume

bushmeat for the same reason their forefathers before them did. Bushmeat hunting

has been a tradition and a way of life in Africa for eons, and all animal species

(from rodents to great apes) are hunted for consumptive use.

But like for many other facets of life on the continent, the ethics of wildlife exploitation has undergone dramatic changes in recent years. Human populations have

grown rapidly on the continent, and more people are now engaged in the exploitation of wildlife than ever before. More importantly, use of low-tech hunting tools

such as traps have been replaced by easily accessible guns and rifles that facilitate

rapid extirpation of large numbers of animals. With access to more powerful and

highly effective weapons, large mammals such as elephants and great apes that

were once hunted by only the most experienced and traditionally revered hunters,

have become easy prey for the commercially minded hunters. These itinerant commercial hunters are in turn being aided by gradual transformations of the African

landscape through the activities of extractive industries (logging and mining), which

are opening up previously remote areas and creating transient settlements.

Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee and fellow panelists, I do not need

to reiterate the consequences of these transformations for Africa’s wildlife and biodiversity, because the media has done an excellent job bringing it to the global community. Please allow me, however, to just draw one very significant conclusion

about the current status-quo. And that is, whereas wildlife is still very much an important resource for human livelihoods in West Africa, bushmeat utilization is no

longer sustainable because populations of most of the species involved are being

greatly impacted, and some locally extirpated throughout their range. As you can

rightly surmise, the bushmeat problem in Africa has emerged as a double-edge on

the one hand, wildlife populations are being extirpated, and on the other, the livelihood of a great majority of people is increasingly at risk from the loss of wildlife.

It is this complex challenge we are confronted with for achieving biodiversity conservation on the continent.

As a conservation organization that cares about people and wildlife, Conservation

International has been very keen on exploring and implementing conservation solutions that accommodate this concern. We are committed to pursuing an integrated

approach that accommodates diverse perspectives and involves multiple stakeholders and partners to maximize success in mitigating the threat. In this regard,

we have helped organize regional workshops in West and Central Africa where

major stakeholders discuss and analyze the social, cultural, economic and biological

contexts, and establish frameworks for developing and implementing solutions. Our

76

involvement in the Bushmeat Crisis Task Force (BCTF) also reflects our commitment toward a broader alliance to tackle this complex and large-scale problem.

Through BCTF, CI and other organizations committed to saving biological diversity

around the world have been able to reach decision-makers and the general public,

with the strongest possible messages that reflect our collective concern on this crucial issue.

More specifically, CI country programs are confronting the problem head on in the

field by targeting all major stakeholders at the national level. In Ghana for example, the focus has been on mobilizing the public through a massive awareness and

sensitization campaign based on cultural and traditional priorities, such as totems.

Totems are wildlife entities (animal species) that symbolize cultural values and beliefs. Although success is yet to be translated in terms of actual reductions in

bushmeat hunting and threats to wildlife, the effort to link bushmeat problem to

totems has garnered the attention of all Ghanaians. To put this into an even better

perspective, let me quote a recent message from the Director of CI’s Ghana Program, Okyeame Ampadu–Agyei: ‘‘The bushmeat crisis is now receiving national attention. This is mainly due to our sustained awareness campaign based on the conservation of totems in Ghana. The new concept has galvanized the entire citizenry

to address the problem by involving politicians, traditional rulers, hunters, market

women and the general public. The attached paper presents the novelty approach.

It shows how our culture is inextricably linked with animals. This could be the final

key to address the bushmeat crisis in many parts of Africa.’’

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, the scale of the bushmeat crisis

in Africa is enormous. Long-term success therefore requires that solutions such as

those emerging in Ghana be scaled-up proportionally to ensure a balance between

human livelihood needs and biodiversity conservation goals. Additional approaches

are needed to ensure effective protection of species already threatened by the commercial trade. This is in no doubt a daunting task for African countries and conservation organizations, and one that would require major investment by governments and funding agencies. So what role should the U.S. Government play? The

leadership of U.S. Government Agencies in supporting bilateral initiatives on biodiversity conservation across Africa has been formidable. The bushmeat crisis cannot be separated from all other conservation challenges on the continent, which

means that U.S. Government assistance through the Agency for International Development (USAID), and International Programs of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife and

the U.S.D.A. Forest Service has already made crucial contributions in one way or

another toward addressing the bushmeat problem. Therefore, I propose here that

considerations be given to the following specific strategies for increased funding

from the U.S. government, possibly through an especially targeted mechanism: • Creation, expansion and effective management of forests parks and protected

areas: The creation, expansion and effective management of forest parks and

protected areas that maintain a safe haven for forest animals is the only way

of guaranteeing viable populations of many wildlife species on the long-term. It

is from these last remaining natural areas that repopulation of depleted landscapes can occur, to give future generations of Africans a chance at sustaining

traditional livelihood practices.

• Promotion of alternative sources of protein: As long as people depend on wildlife

as a source of protein, bushmeat hunting will remain a major factor in sustaining rural livelihoods. But the commercial trade can be greatly reduced by

promoting stable, competitively priced supplies of animal protein other than

bushmeat, particularly in urban areas across the region, where bushmeat is

more of a luxury food item.

• Monitoring and influencing activities of extractive industries: By working closely with extractive industries such as logging and mining, government agencies

and conservation organizations can ensure that activities associated with resource extraction (i.e. the creation of roads etc.) do not lead to the widespread

slaughter of wildlife for commercial purposes.

• Promotion of public awareness raising and public education on risks of

bushmeat consumption: The traditional, cultural and livelihood implications of

impending wildlife extinctions are still not effectively understood by most

Africans. With recent reports of potential links between bushmeat consumption

and HIV (the virus that causes AIDS in humans), there is need to use this critical message as part of a large-scale effort to change attitudes towards

bushmeat hunting and consumption.

• Promotion of research on sustainable hunting: There is need to continuously increase understanding of wildlife population dynamics by conducting research

and monitoring to determine the practicality of sustainable hunting for longterm survivability of animal populations.

77

I thank you very much once again, Mr. Chairman, and applaud the efforts of this

House Subcommittee in its attempt to understand the ramifications of this critically

important conservation challenge in Africa. We look forward to working with you

on any initiative that will emerge from this oversight hearing.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you very much, Dr. Bakarr.

Each of the witnesses today at one point or another made reference to more resources, and some of you have mentioned specifically the United States and have given us actual figures for those

resources, which is always helpful.

Dr. Bakarr, you mentioned a number of things that you would

like this Committee and the Congress and the United States to

consider with our participation in preserving and restoring much of

the beauty and the magnificence of the forests in Africa. You suggested that we participate more in the expansion of protected

areas, alternative sources of protein, monitor extractive industries,

more public awareness, and so on.

What would be helpful for us to pursue those goals, along with

a number of other goals that you have all suggested and made

some specific dollar amounts available, would be to give us in our

deliberation with our colleagues to win their heart and mind to

vote for these issues. Apparently the road to Damascus enlightened

Paul and enlightened apparently this logging company from Europe. It doesn’t always work in the bowels of the House of Representatives.

But what makes it easier is for us to be as specific and as targeted as possible with these issues, so what would be helpful, Dr.

Bakarr—and I am not sure if you are prepared to do it here, but

if you gave us a map of Africa, Central Africa, West Africa, and you

said here is where the—here are the areas that are benefiting from

this type of attention. This is where the people are finding alternative sources of protein. These are the protected areas that we

need to expand, and this is why we have to expand them, because

of the hydrology, because of the species that are there, because of

the stability of the community. Here is the local community that

we can get into in Liberia. When we mention Liberia in the Congress, we see instability, we see tragedy, we see horrific acts; Sierra Leone, to some extent as well.

So if you could be—and your colleagues this afternoon, you can

educate us, and I think it is a good idea. I am not sure who mentioned the Bushmeat Congressional Caucus. We wouldn’t serve any

endangered species. We might serve some invasive species that we

have here in this country. And I also think that is a good idea to

have a Bushmeat Caucus to connect us with your issues.

But, Dr. Bakarr, just two questions. Can you give us some specific areas that need to be protected and how would they be protected? And what would the acreage be? Do you have any idea as

to the alternative sources of protein which would involve local agriculture that would be beneficial? Some ideas on how to monitor the

extractive industries. It is hard for us to monitor our extractive industries in this country with all our capabilities. And one last question: Is there a future for subsistence consumption in Africa?

Dr. BAKARR. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. That is a

very excellent question.

78

With respect to protected areas, I think I can reiterate that the

efforts on the ground currently have been site-based. They need to

be scaled up at the regional level, and those sites where investments have been making tremendous achievements can then become core areas that we can build upon to expand across the larger

landscape that we are discussing. Such a proposal is already coming forward, as you heard from one of my colleagues here, through

a partnership involving all the major international NGO’s and the

U.S. for Central Africa. We don’t have yet such a large-scale partnership for West Africa, and we need that in order for protected

areas to be scaled up to that level.

The approach here is that various institutions usually focus on

holding onto sites where they believe viable populations of species

exist. But if you can integrate those sites into bigger sites, bigger

areas, then you have a chance of building stronger and more efficient landscapes for longer success in conservation, and that is the

approach we hope to take in West Africa as well.

In West Africa, Liberia and Ivory Coast represent the best hope

for safeguarding biodiversity, not only just wildlife but also the forest ecosystem itself because they have the best tracts of forest left

at the moment. There are still significant tracts in Sierra Leone,

but they are becoming increasingly isolated from the rest of the forest block, and efforts need to be made to make those links as well.

But as you correctly pointed out, the issue of stability is a big one

right now, and it is probably going to take us a few more years before we can get to that level.

With respect to alternative protein, the forest ecosystem in West

and Central Africa is very difficult to raise domesticated animals.

It is not an easy thing. And so the majority of the people have relied on fish resources and occasionally some vegetable crops as well

for alternative sources of protein. Now, if wildlife were to disappear

completely, Africans are so adaptive that they will find something

else to focus on as a priority, and I will not be surprised if fish,

both freshwater and marine, don’t play a major role in that. There

is a lot of fish—in fact, there are graphics to show that many of

the countries where bushmeat is a problem produce the largest tonnage of fish that is consumed domestically.

Mr. GILCHREST. Is this fish farming? Is this aquaculture?

Dr. BAKARR. Aquaculture, collection from freshwater sources, as

well as marine fisheries. So there is no shortage of alternative

sources of protein. The real dilemma we have is being able to sensitize the public to understand that wildlife is not as sustainable

as they might think. And what we are ending up with is smaller

and smaller bodied animals, which people are fine with. They will

eat them. They will live on cane rats. That is no problem at all.

So to them, all this noise about bushmeat is not real because they

get hundreds of ken rats every day. But the reality is the large

mammals are disappearing because they are the ones that are easy

targets, they are the ones that are easy prey. They bring more

money. They are more cost-effective for the hunter.

So our problem is not a shortage of protein. It is being able to

raise the profile of those that are more sustainable so that the

pressure on those that are not can be reduced and eliminated in

the long term.

79

With respect to monitoring extractive industries, I think there

are very good lessons already from programs in Central Africa, but

they will not succeed without good backing and support from the

government. And I think that is the dilemma we have in Liberia,

unfortunately. With the good support of government agencies, logging companies can be monitored effectively by NGO’s and local

partners. Not a problem.

Mr. GILCHREST. Does anyone else want to comment? Dr. Robinson?

Dr. ROBINSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman—

Mr. GILCHREST. Just to interrupt just for a second, you can also

comment on this. I know I fired a lot of questions out at you, Dr.

Bakarr. And all of you, I would like your input on those questions,

and also the question of is there a future for subsistence living,

farming in this part of Africa.

Dr. ROBINSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Bakarr actually

addressed, I think, these questions extremely well, but let me

elaborate on a couple of these ideas.

One, let me reiterate that certainly in Central Africa right now

we are seeing this constellation of stars coming together that Dr.

Carroll talked about, that the conservation community is developing a very systematic consensus on really what is needed, and

that consensus involves the establishment of protected areas. And

we are talking about 30 million acres of land which could be under

protection, double that under some kind of management, forest

management.

Mr. GILCHREST. So we are talking about 60 million acres.

Dr. ROBINSON. There are about 30 million acres in protected

areas and about 60 million acres in managed forests.

Mr. GILCHREST. There are 30 million acres right now in protected

areas?

Dr. ROBINSON. About 8 right now.

Mr. GILCHREST. Eight.

Dr. ROBINSON. Yes, but there is the potential of basically getting

up to about 30. There are discussions going on with African governments and within the community to establish those areas at the

present time.

Mr. GILCHREST. This would be in Central and West Africa?

Dr. ROBINSON. This is primarily Central Africa.

Mr. GILCHREST. Central Africa.

Dr. ROBINSON. That is correct. At the present time, funding going

into Central Africa for environmental and conservation reasons

probably doesn’t exceed more than about $12 million a year, and

that is from bilateral, multilateral, and all conservation organizations. The amount of funding going into Central African conservation is insignificant.

Mr. GILCHREST. It is $12 million.

Dr. ROBINSON. Yes, $12 million.

Mr. GILCHREST. From all sources?

Dr. ROBINSON. From all sources. And so the potential, there is

a political will in Africa which is really exciting right now. There

is a consensus among the conservation organizations within—

Mr. GILCHREST. Where did the $12 million come from?

Dr. ROBINSON. Pardon?,

80

Mr. GILCHREST. That is everybody?,

Dr. ROBINSON. That is everybody. It is actually shocking when

you add it up. And, clearly, there is an opportunity to make a huge

difference with not very much more of an increment.

And so when you hear calls for additional funding through mechanisms like CARPE, through the multi-species funds, we have

mechanisms in the U.S. to provide that kind of funding.

I think there is also the potential to work very systematically

with logging companies who are increasingly under pressure to say

that they are producing wood in a more sustainable way and having less of an impact on the forest landscape, especially with respect to wildlife.

Mr. GILCHREST. Is one of the criteria for the logging companies

to replant after they log? Can you replant that type of forest?

Dr. ROBINSON. At the present time, few, if any, companies are

doing any replanting. At the minute they are very much high grading, just taking off a few trees, a few high-value trees over very,

very extensive areas. So the impact on the forest, if you look at the

forest, sometimes it is not that great. But as the logging companies

move through the forest, they hunt, and the forest is just being

stripped out. But those companies are interested in working with

conservation communities, with certification agencies, and I think

there is a real potential to have an impact there.

Let me just sort of say something very quickly about the future

of subsistence hunting in Africa. Even in the United States, people

still hunt for the freezer. And those are people for the most part

who have the opportunity and who frequently have their backs

against the walls in other contexts.

In the long term, subsistence hunting in Africa will have to dwindle. But I think the major thrust at the minute is not focusing so

much on stopping the subsistence hunting because we don’t have

the alternative sources of protein to replace in much of Africa at

the present time. The real thrust from a conservation standpoint

and from a sustainability standpoint is to really focus on that commercial hunting, because it is the commercial hunting which is

having the impact.

Mr. GILCHREST. So you would say, Dr. Robinson, that the local

consumption compared to the lucrative cash markets is small?

Dr. ROBINSON. The amount of meat which is actually being consumed for subsistence may be actually as high as about three-quarters of all the meat which is being hunted. But it is that quarter

which goes to the commerce which is hitting the large species, hitting those species which people want to eat, and is basically pushing the whole system over the top.

Mr. GILCHREST. That is a vote, but I think we can finish.

Dr. Carroll?

Mr. CARROLL. Yes, thank you very much. You asked about specific targets for the development of protected areas across the

Congo Basin, and in my written testimony I have included a map

of conservation priorities that were developed in a workshop facilitated by WWF, but it included 160 experts on biodiversity and biogeography in the Congo Basin. And this was produced really at the

request of the Yaounde Summit governments as they were trying

to develop a coherent plan for the Congo Basin conservation.

81

So we got together; you know, all these experts developed a map

of conservation priorities with the key overlap areas of species diversity, species richness, and opportunity for conservation. And

that map has been adopted, as well as the blueprint for the conservation by the Yaounde Summit. And their plans that they are

trying to put in place in the next 5 years are based on the landscapes identified in this map.

Now, WWF and WCS are working with these countries to try to

refine those big priority blobs on the map into really specific areas

defined with limits that could be potential protected areas.

For instance, in the country of Gabon right now, the Government

of Gabon is very interested in very quickly putting in place 12 new

national parks that are being proposed by the joint work of WWF

and WCS. And we are very optimistic that will be put in place, but

that is a result of this priority-setting exercise, the Yaounde Summit commitment to putting 10 percent of each national country’s

forest into protected area management—into protected areas. And

when we talk about the cost, that map that you see in front of us,

our estimates—just to put in place protected areas to cover only 10

percent of the Congo Basin in protected areas, our estimates are

that that could range up to $100 million a year in cost to do that.

So when we are making—as Dr. Robinson pointed out, currently our levels are so far below that, you know, $12 million, that we

have a major gap, and we are hoping for leadership from the U.S.

Government to try to help fill those gaps and help—

Mr. GILCHREST. Your recommendation was $15 million.

Dr. ROBINSON. Yes.

Mr. GILCHREST. A year, for 10 years.

Dr. ROBINSON. Yes, sir. To go through, probably through CARPE,

because CARPE we look at as a mechanism to bring together—that

brings together the—

Mr. GILCHREST. Is there a commitment—some of us will try to

reach that commitment. Are you asking—it would be actually a little bit easier for us to do it if we knew that Japan, England,

France, Germany, Italy, whoever, they were also making a commitment.

Dr. ROBINSON. Yes, and we hope that happens as well. We hope

that the leadership of the U.S. Government will push those other

countries to make that commitment. The European Union has been

a major supporter of protected areas through a program called

ECOFAC that has been managing six protected areas across the

Congo Basin. And we are going to urge them, based on the leverage

that we hope will come from the U.S. Government Congo Basin Initiative to continue their funding for the same period of time for

those protected areas so that it nestles together very well.

Now, the governments are also making commitments to put

these in place through the Yaounde process. They are putting their

own money on the table to get these areas in place. You know,

there have been many declarations by heads of state, but this one

really seems to be taking hold because of the international spotlight that is being put on it.

Like I said, since 1999 there have been 15,000 square kilometers

of new protected areas put in place through this process, and they

have committed to 12 major landscapes in protected areas. And if

82

we can only keep that encouragement going by providing the funding for that—

Mr. GILCHREST. We will do our best. I don’t want to interrupt,

but I think there is a vote going on. There is more than one vote,

apparently, so I am going to have to wrap this up in just about 2

minutes, and I apologize for that. Here comes the buzzers again.

Just a couple more questions before I leave, though, and you

have all been very, very helpful. Dr. Hutchins and all of you mentioned in various ways the bushmeat trade. is there any way to

know where the more expensive markets of the bushmeat trade

are, that 25 percent?

Mr. HUTCHINS. I might just address that. Actually, BCTF has

been working on a project that is intended to try to identify not

only where the major markets are but the important trade routes,

where is the bushmeat being transported to and from, because we

do feel that these are important places where control could be effected. And this is called the Bushmeat Hot Spots Map Project, and

we are working with our members, which are, in fact, represented

by all the organizations that are at this table, and with the CITES/

MIKE people who have been for several years monitoring the trade

in elephants, illegal trade in elephants and the taking of elephants

throughout Africa.

We are hoping to try to bring those processes together because

they do collect a lot of information on bushmeat as well. So the

monitoring, I think, will be very important for developing a strategy to address the bushmeat issue.

Mr. GILCHREST. Bring a big light and a camera, show somebody

eating gorilla meat in a restaurant in Paris or Washington, D.C.,

God forbid.

Mr. Agnagna, you stated very eloquently some of the ancient traditions and sacred rules of the various peoples of the continent of

Africa. And we talked about subsistence farming and the future of

it. Can some of those ancient traditions and sacred rules of managing resources be retained and passed along to succeeding generations?

Mr. AGNAGNA. I didn’t get the last part of the question.

Mr. GILCHREST. Can the traditions, the ancient traditions of subsistence farming, with their sacred rules, are they still alive in the

hearts of people in Africa? And are they being passed down to the

children?

Mr. AGNAGNA. I will say that in the deep Africa—I am talking

about a village.

Mr. GILCHREST. Yes.

Mr. AGNAGNA. I think the villager or the local population, the

rural population, they still have those traditions. The problem is

that, as I said, you know, the modernization, the technology, but

people in the deep village, they still have this tradition. The problem is that our laws are modern laws. They didn’t take really in

consideration the rules, the traditional rules.

What I am—you know, I wanted to say that now there is a process in Central Africa, a big process of revising wildlife laws, and

we want to include—we want to take some of the values, traditional values and put them in the laws, because I think that that

was really the best way. I don’t think that the population or the

83

local population—they don’t have some more to learn from modern

conservation because they know, they know how to manage, how

to manage the natural resources.

Mr. GILCHREST. Maybe we can blend the two together. I hope the

spirit of the forest stays in the forest.

Thank you all very much. I appreciate it. We will stay engaged.

The hearing is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 1:05 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

[Additional material submitted for the record follows:]

[The article ‘‘Bushmeat and the Origin of HIV/AIDS’’ submitted

for the record follows:]

84

85

86

87

88

89

[The article ‘‘Warfare on gorillas poses threat to survival’’

submitted for the record follows:]

90

91

92

93

[A statement submitted for the record by Reginald Hoyt, Senior

Vice President, Conservation and Science, Philadelphia Zoo,

follows:]

Statement of Reginald Hoyt, Senior Vice President,

Conservation & Science, Philadelphia Zoo

Introduction:

This testimony was prepared to respond to the questions of the Chairman that

were directed to panelists on 11 July, concerning conservation activities in Liberia,

West Africa. Liberia has been recognized as a global conservation priority as it retains nearly 40% of its lowland tropical rainforest intact. These forests represent the

largest remaining tracts of the Upper Guinea Forest block that once covered much

of West Africa (Togo to Sierra Leone). Home to forest elephants, the pygmy hippopotamus, a host of primates (including the chimpanzee, Diana monkey, red colobus

and black and white colobus), and seven species of antelope (including the Jentink’s

and zebra duikers, which are unique to West Africa) Liberia represents the best

chance for the long-term survival of many species of conservation concern.

Unfortunately, Liberia was embroiled in a violent civil war that lasted from 1989

to 1997. This war resulted in 40% of the population being either killed or made refugees before it was to end. To this day, political and economic instability plague conservation efforts in Liberia.

The Philadelphia Zoo’s One With Nature conservation program has been working

with Liberia partners since 1992. Given that the civil conflict in Liberia did not subside until 1997, our earlier efforts focused on maintaining the capacity to conduct

conservation activities within the country via stipend support to professional staff

within the Forestry Development Authority and the Society for the Conservation of

Nature of Liberia. In addition, in-kind donations of uniforms, office equipment and

a used vehicle were made. From 1997–1999 the Zoo focused its attention on assessments that evaluated the condition of Sapo National Park or data collection concerning species of conservation concern. It was not until 2000, that our efforts came

to focus on the harvest and commercial use of wildlife.

Problem Outline and the Philadelphia zoo’s work in Liberia:

A conservation assessment conducted in 1997 via a grant from the Philadelphia

Zoo found that Liberia’s only national park, Sapo National Park, had survived the

civil conflict intact and that it appeared that wildlife populations had actually

thrived during the war. While bushmeat harvest has been a long-term problem in

Liberia, with an estimated value of $47,000,000 prior to the war, the ferocity of the

fighting within the region adjacent to Sapo National Park had resulted in much of

94

the population becoming refugees. Those that remained lacked the equipment (guns

or shot) or materials (wire for cable snares) to continue to harvest wildlife with any

efficiency, so during the conflict wildlife populations rebounded. But with much of

post-war Liberia, things were to change rapidly.

In economic collapse and led by Charles Taylor, the former warlord who began

the conflict in 1989, Liberia is currently listed among the poorest countries in the

world. The desire for economic growth have led to a ‘‘gold rush’’ like approach to

resource utilization in Liberia, with timber extraction being among the most obvious. With the arrival of Oriental Timber Company in Liberia in 1999 the destruction of Liberia’s forest reserves has proceeded at an alarming rate.

The construction of logging roads has fragmented the Krahn–Bassa National Forest, providing access for settlers, who practice slash and burn agriculture, and hunters. While the road networks continue to expand, impacting nearly all of the remaining forest blocks in Liberia, people in need of work (unemployment estimated

at 85%) turn to the only sources of income they know. Those who returned from refugee camps to their homes in Liberia’s towns and cities found no work. Over the

years many of them have turned to Liberia’s natural resources as a source of income. Some have found work in logging or mining, while a growing number have

turned to the harvest of wildlife.

In 1997, we found very little commercial bushmeat hunting in those areas adjacent to Liberia’s forest reserves in Sinoe County. However, during a survey of the

Cestos River in 1999, our team discovered a nearly ‘‘empty forest’’ where we found

few antelope. We discovered that hunters from a near-by logging camp were setting

between 150 and 300 wire snares each per night. With much of the meat rotting

in the forest, since 150 snares are far too many to efficiently manage, local villagers

were angry and routinely destroyed the snares of the loggers. But every night we

heard gunfire as hunters ‘‘called’’ in duikers to be shot.

Unlike the testimonies presented by our colleagues representing the situation in

Central Africa, primates were not the primary targets of hunters in 1999. At the

time antelope were plentiful, having been given a reprieve from hunting during the

war years. With gun shot costing nearly $2 per cartridge, and antelope representing

a larger and easier killed prey, primates were not heavily hunted. However, should

antelope populations decline, a switch to primates could be expected.

In 2000, the Philadelphia Zoo working with its Liberian partners conducted a

hunter survey to better understand the distribution of selected animals of concern.

During that survey hunters requested posters that would show them which species

were protected by law, and complained that the government was not doing enough

to protect the forest or the wildlife resources of Liberia. During that same year, to

improve communications between conservationists and communities, the Zoo founded its ‘‘Community Relations Officer’’ program in the area adjacent to Sapo National

Park. In addition to public awareness and the facilitation of communications, the

duties of the position included the collection of data on bushmeat activities in the

region.

Since the founding of this program we have seen dramatic shifts in the pressure

on wildlife. In 2000, to meet financial needs, villagers were selling one half of all

large animals killed by the handful of snares set by a hunter. By 2002 hunters were

only retaining the heads and entrails for their family’s protein needs. Everything

else is being sold to merchants who transport the meat to Monrovia. Becoming more

and more organized, traders are now requesting large antelope, as it will bring them

greater profit. In addition, villagers complain that ‘‘outsiders’’ from the cities have

begun hunting within their tribal lands. While local hunters typically use 25–35

wire snares, these ‘‘commercial hunters’’ often set more than 150 snares. Data

shows that when these large-scale hunting operations begin, everyone’s hunting success per unit effort declines.

In an effort to better understand the bushmeat trade in Liberia, the Philadelphia

Zoo developed an Urban Public Opinion and Bushmeat Survey that was conducted

earlier this year in eight communities throughout Liberia with funding from the

Conservation Endowment Fund of the American Zoo and Aquarium Association. The

survey engaged 20 Liberian students in the effort, and was coordinated through several partner organizations in Liberia. The more than 2,300 interviews that were

conducted are providing insights into the beliefs of the Liberian public, and the

bushmeat market. Data analysis continues, as does work on the next phase of our

bushmeat initiative. In 2003, the Zoo will again partner with Liberians to conduct

a Rural Public Opinion and Bushmeat Survey (funded by the Critical Ecosystem

Partnership Fund managed by Conservation International) in five forested regions

of the country so that we can better understand the viewpoint of rural villagers.

To address the requests of hunters surveyed in 2000, the Zoo has produced a poster of ‘‘Liberia’s Protected Wildlife’’ and distributed 5,000 during the Urban Public

95

Opinion and Bushmeat Survey. Currently, our partners in Liberia are conducting

a Pilot Public Awareness Campaign, so that we may evaluate various media and

its effectiveness in transmitting conservation messages to the public. In 2003, a National Public Awareness Campaign will take advantage of what we will have

learned from the Pilot Campaign, and will focus efforts on addressing Liberia’s

pressing environmental issues. This Campaign will also be funded by a grant from

the Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund.

Today the Philadelphia Zoo is taking the lead role in addressing the bushmeat

crisis in Liberia, by conducting research and coordinating the activities of our Liberian partners. The goal of our work in Liberia is to identify the causes and aggravating activities that drive the bushmeat market. While we do not have figures on

how many animals are killed annually, nor on how much money this extractive industry produces each year, it is clear that the bushmeat trade in Liberia is growing

rapidly and that numerous species are already being harvested unsustainably. Further, it is clear that Liberia’s bushmeat industry is not restricted to its boundaries,

and that this environmental crisis must be addressed on at least a regional if not

global level.

Finally, I must point out that the ‘‘Bushmeat Crisis’’ is not the creation of international conservation organizations. Our work demonstrates that Liberians recognize the need for the management of their natural resources. Some communities

have even attempted to stop bushmeat hunting as they see it as a serious threat

to their wildlife resources, but there is a lack of capacity at all levels of society to

deal with the challenges.

Financial commitment to conservation in Liberia

During the decade that the Philadelphia Zoo has worked in Liberia our efforts

have been primarily funded by donations from our membership. Grants have been

difficult to acquire due to the political instability of the region, but we have remained committed. While the Zoo has received funding recently from the American

Zoo and Aquarium Association and from the Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund,

and our colleagues have received support from the World Bank and a handful of European organizations, funding has been lacking for conservation in West Africa.

While testimony given on 11 July indicated that $12,000,000 a year was being spent

on conservation in Central Africa, all of West Africa receives considerably less than

$1,000,000 in financial support annually. As a global conservation priority, West

Africa should be given greater financial support to meet the threat of habitat loss

and the bushmeat crisis. This support can also be used to leverage development and

good governance efforts in the region.

Recommendations

1. USAID, USFWS, and the State Department work together with US-based conservation organizations to support conservation priorities in Liberia and West

Africa

2. USAID funds currently being withheld in Liberia be released to address

projects that meet both development and conservation goals

3. US work with the EU and others to develop stronger financial support to address the bushmeat crisis in West Africa

4. Congress support efforts of US-based organizations to improve forest and wildlife management and conservation in West Africa

5. Recognize that development and conservation are not mutually exclusive, and

support partnerships that promote sustainable economic development that is

also compatible with the conservation of natural resources for the betterment

of future generations of West Africans

We appreciate the Committee’s attention to this issue, and hope that our testimony will be of service. Additional information is available upon request.

[An attachment to Mr. Hoyt’s statement follows

96

Æ